Oregon's Homeless Youth

How many of Oregon’s youth are homeless? Why are they separated from their families? What services are available to them? What more is needed? In 2005, following a local study of homeless youth by the League of Women Voters of the Umpqua Valley, the League of Women Voters of Oregon voted to adopt a statewide study, and this report presents its findings.

As the League discovered, the definition of homeless youth varies among federal and state agencies and among organizations serving homeless youth. For this study, we adopted the definition used by the Oregon Runaway and Homeless Youth Work Group in its 2005 report entitled From Out of the Shadows: Homeless youth are those youth between the ages of 12 and 21 who lack a stable residence and are living away from their parent or guardian.1 They are living in shelters, couch surfing with friends, seeking shelter in vehicles or abandoned buildings or sleeping on the street. They often have no address or identification documents and no parental assistance in financial matters. They may have lost or severed contact with their parents or extended family.

The number of homeless youth in Oregon is nearly impossible to count. The Oregon Runaway and Homeless Youth Coalition, using a federal formula that 1 in 12 homeless youth contact a service provider, estimates that as many as 24,000 Oregon youth are homeless, coming from rural, suburban and urban areas.2 Most are not in contact with services or agencies that are maintaining counts. They do not seek traditional services, fearing they will be returned to a home or placement that may be unsafe. They may have been abused or neglected, have untreated mental health or addiction problems, or may be involved in illegal activities, and thus are avoiding agency contact.

Dona Bolt, the Oregon coordinator for the McKinney-Vento Act,3 observed that many homeless students go unidentified because their living situation is hidden, invisible, or kept from teachers and administrators. Many homeless youth dropped out of school before becoming homeless.

Furthermore, “It is very difficult to get a realistic picture of the everyday life of an unaccompanied and homeless youth. …This subgroup of the homeless population remains one of the least understood, most vulnerable, and most difficult to reach. Most are homeless due to issues associated with family problems, economic difficulties, and residential instability. Once on the street, they are doubly victimized as they are exposed to dangers that equal or exceed the home situations they sought to escape.”4

Most people acknowledge that raising a teenager is challenging work. Teens push the limits. They challenge authority. In a natural developmental stage, youth generally separate from family in adolescence and seek emotional ties outside of the family. They are developing their sense of self, adjusting to physical and hormonal changes, learning to deal with their emotions, dealing with identity issues, and establishing meaningful relationships. If healthy responsible adults are not available to youth during this critical developmental period, the youths may suffer the rest of their lives from misconceptions about themselves and the world around them.5

Community denial about homeless youth is a common reaction. In many parts of Oregon our League interviewers heard, “We don’t have any of those in our city.” Some community leaders expressed their concern that if services are provided for homeless young people, their community will become the destination for all the West Coast runaways and homeless youth. Some questioned the validity of providing tax-supported services to these “deck chairs on the Titanic.” Other individuals expressed disdain and disregard, concluding that it’s these teens' fault they’re homeless. Some business operators regard homeless youth as a public nuisance, detrimental to business, and consider law enforcement the answer.

The design of this study focused heavily on individual interviews with young people, the agencies who serve them, and policymakers. More than 70 League members statewide conducted over 300 interviews that included policymakers and representatives of over 50 agencies and 35 school districts. Surveys and group interviews were also conducted with more than 150 youth who had been homeless at one time or another. Web sites and written documents provided additional information.6 Members of the League’s study committee developed the interview format, gathered information, assisted local Leagues in their studies, compiled local League studies, and prepared this report.7

WHO ARE THESE YOUTH AND WHY ARE THEY HOMELESS?

Tiffany
Tiffany, the oldest of seven, was raised by her mother in a single-wide trailer. She was responsible for the majority of “motherly” tasks. She got her siblings to school and helped them do homework, did the shopping if money was available, fixed meals, and cleaned the trailer. Her mother had many boyfriends who brought alcohol and other drugs into the home. When she was 12, Tiffany was raped by one of these men. When she told her mother, she was told that if she didn’t like the lifestyle, she could leave. Tiffany stayed because of her siblings, learning to use marijuana and alcohol. She was frequently raped by her mother’s boyfriends. Her attendance at school became sporadic, her health declined, and her smile disappeared. She was a frequent runaway. At 14 one of her mother’s boyfriends promised her a “better life.” That “better life” included drugs, alcohol and prostitution. At 16, after two years, Tiffany ran, becoming one of the homeless youth living on the streets.
To maintain anonymity, Tiffany’s story is a compilation of two homeless teens’ lives, as told to League interviewers.8

A partial picture of the runaway and homeless youth population emerges from the Runaway and Homeless Youth Management Information System (RHYMIS) and the data it collects from agencies receiving federal funds to serve this population. As reported in From Out of the Shadows9, during a 12-month period in 2002-2003, 1,992 unaccompanied homeless youth had been in federally supported shelters in Oregon. Forty-five percent of the youth surveyed reported attending school regularly, 19% irregularly, and 26% had dropped out. Of the homeless youth in Oregon served by agencies with Basic Center Programs10, 48% were males and 52% were females; most were white and typically age 15 or 16.

League interviews reveal similar information, although the percentage of males or females varies depending upon whether the agency is referring to youth participating in its programs or “street kids” contacted by outreach workers. As a rule, girls are more likely than boys to seek help, especially when they are pregnant or already young mothers. A major city like Portland, however, is more likely to attract young men, and the figures there for the major youth-serving agency are males 55% and females 45 %, with 88% in the 15 to 20-year-old age group. Almost 60 % are white, with African Americans and Hispanics a quarter of the population and almost evenly divided. In other cities and counties, the minority population tends to be less and the majority of homeless youth, younger.

Why do young people become homeless? Their reasons are many and the same. In the League’s discussions with youth their reasons for leaving home are consistent with reasons found across the United States.

FAMILY DYSFUNCTION
Youth consistently report family dysfunction as the primary reason for homelessness. Many leave home after years of physical or sexual abuse, strained relationships, mental illness, addiction of a family member, and/or parental neglect. National child abuse studies of homeless youth indicate rates of sexual abuse from 17 to 53%, and physical abuse from 40 to 60%.

ECONOMIC STRESS
According to the Homeless Shelter Nightcount conducted by Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) in January 2005, the primary reasons for youth being homeless, whether with their families or unaccompanied, are financial.11 Lack of affordable housing also is clearly a major cause of all homelessness.12 In addition, economic hardship can lead to inadequate health care, frequent moves, lack of consistent caregivers, abuse/neglect, substance abuse, mental illness and domestic violence.13

LIMITED ALTERNATIVES
According to Ken Cowdery, Executive Director for New Avenues for Youth in Portland, “We have far too many kids leaving foster care in Oregon who are becoming homeless. That is a serious issue in this state.”

While foster care may be a good option for young children, it often does not work well for adolescents. It is difficult to find suitable foster parents for adolescents, and many youth as well find it difficult to adjust to a new family structure. Successful foster care requires professional support to assure that foster parents are carefully screened, trained and supervised, and that their foster children receive needed services. On average, however, caseworkers in Oregon handle a caseload of 26, as opposed to 18, which is the standard recommended by the Council on Accreditation.14 Unhappy in their foster homes, some youth run away and join the ranks of the homeless. In addition many 18-year-olds, who are too old for foster care, are not yet ready to be on their own. They leave foster care with nowhere to go.

Once youth have left home, they have few choices for shelter. Some move from one friend’s or relative’s home to another until they have exhausted this supply of generosity. Oregon’s larger cities (Portland, Salem, Eugene, and Bend) have limited shelter beds available; smaller cities and towns have none. Some youth utilize the faith-based community and may find shelter in a church member’s home. Lacking shelter, the young people go to the streets where they meet other homeless teens, homeless adults, predators, and in some cases, gangs.

Oregon law enforcement has documented approximately 118 gangs15, including criminal street gangs, prison gangs, and outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMG), with close to 3,000 gang members in the state. The greater Portland metropolitan area is estimated to have as many as 2,000 criminal street gang members. Gang influence has spread from major cities to rural communities. Gangs generally rely on youth coming out of distressed or abusive/neglectful homes for a steady supply of new members.

Homeless youths’ self-perceptions can make it difficult for counselors and service providing agencies to reach them. They may be embarrassed to admit they are homeless. Instead many rationalize and say they are “houseless” or glamorize the homeless lifestyle as their ticket to freedom. Many have survived so long on their own that they have created a hard shell around themselves; language, dress and behavior make it difficult for the average middle-class person to deal with them. Their way of life becomes a hard-to-break habit and they value their independence highly – rules, curfews and boundaries have not been a part of their lives, which makes adjusting to rules in a home or shelter very difficult. Because they are young and their cognitive abilities have not yet matured they may

The young people we heard from in this study tell us that they are ill-equipped to support themselves. They report that their families are in conflict much of the time and their parents often have unstable relationships and unhealthy living circumstances that have diminished their ability to parent effectively or resolve conflict.

WHAT DID THE YOUNG PEOPLE TELL US?

Youth may often feel abandoned by one or both parents because of new partners, stepparents, substance abuse, domestic violence, or mental illness. When they do attempt to re-engage with their families, they may be blamed for the family distress or even their own abuse and victimization. The young people speak with regret and frustration about their lack of connection to their schools. They often feel ostracized and isolated within the school community, cannot make good connections, and find themselves turning to other youth and adults who they know are unhealthy for them but with whom they are able to bond. These unhealthy relationships often lead to subsequent victimization, street alliances, drug use, and further erosion of the youth-school connection. These young people fall farther and farther behind in school, making the idea of catching up seem futile.

They have trouble acquiring identification documents or other papers needed for school or work. As one young person states, “It’s easier to find drugs than it is to find a job.” There is not enough room in the shelter programs, and sometimes the shelter programs are too restrictive or too short-term. Those youth in foster care may find themselves far away from their relatives, friends, or schools. Additional barriers to re-connection include lack of transportation, suitable clothes, fees, information, skills, education, as well as the youths’ own feelings of hopelessness and isolation.

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE YOUTH?

Scott
Scott, 17, was a star athlete and good student. He was unable to comply with his stepfather’s rules, so he ran away to a family friend’s house. When his parents found out, they told him to come home. The arguing and the stress continued, and his mother always took his stepfather’s side. He left again. The family he was staying with tried to set up mediation with his parents so he could stay with them until he was able to graduate. His parents told him they would not do anything temporary. They gave him to the other family and told him they did not want to see him again. With his new family’s support, Scott graduated from high school.

Legally, parents are responsible for their children until they are "adults," which is at age 18 in Oregon, unless a teenager is married before age 18. Parental responsibilities include providing food, shelter and medical care, as well as seeing that their children receive an education and keeping them safe. Many parents need support and assistance in this undertaking, and communities may offer them parenting classes as well as other services to provide them with the needed support.

A generation or two ago it was not uncommon for children to stay with relatives or close family friends while their parents were going through a difficult time. Today, when parents are unable to be responsible for their children, there are legal options. Parents may legally transfer guardianship to another family member or responsible adult. The legal document allows the guardian to sign for medical care and school enrollment.

The Oregon Circuit Courts may place a child in the custody of the Department of Human Services (DHS) if parents have abused or seriously neglected the child.16 For that to happen, a report must be made to law enforcement or the child welfare agency17, an investigation must occur, and the court must determine that the child welfare agency should be responsible for the child. While in the custody of DHS, a child may be placed with relatives, a certified foster home, a group home, or residential treatment program for children suffering from behavioral, mental health or addiction problems. Youth may return to the parents’ custody if the parents comply with court-ordered plans and services.

The county juvenile departments supervise law-violating youth who are on probation in their parents’ custody or in DHS custody. A young offender may remain in the community in his/her own home, a foster home or a residential facility. The Oregon Youth Authority accepts custody of young offenders committed by the courts for community placement or to a youth correctional facility. The youth returns to the custody of parents at the end of the commitment period unless other legal action is taken.

In all of these cases, parents generally retain some financial responsibility when their children are placed outside the home.

Youth who are over 16 may apply to the court for emancipation, that is, for terminating the parent/child relationship and gaining legal adult status. They must be able to demonstrate to the court’s satisfaction their ability to support themselves and meet their own needs without the help of parents. Few youths undertake this process.

Many homeless youth have been asked to leave by parents who could not control them; many choose to leave. Unfortunately, they may not legally be able to access the services they need, or know how to access them, or they may be afraid to try for fear of being returned to the places they left.

John
John left home at 16. His mother, a mentally ill woman with a substance abuse problem, didn’t know how to parent her talented and gifted son. His father did not know how to cope with his wife’s illness and took refuge in alcohol. Neither parent was aware that John was an exceptional artist with great potential. John became bored in school and started hanging with youth who encouraged him to use drugs. From these new friends, he learned to self-medicate his pain from the times his father hit him, or when his mother spent Dad’s paycheck on alcohol instead of food. He ran away several times, seeking refuge in friends’ homes, but they weren’t able to provide a stable environment. Each time he returned, hoping for an improvement, things were worse. Eventually John decided life with his friends in a tent would be better than living at home. He dropped out of school. A few times when he was picked-up by the police he tried to explain why home wasn’t safe. The police officers told him there wasn’t a place for John to go other than home. The local Mission would not admit him because he wasn’t 18 or older. He was returned home to more beatings and abuse. John finally ran away, leaving his hometown, seeking a life on the streets in a town far from his family.
John’s story is a combination of two youths’ stories.

WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AND HOW ARE THEY FUNDED?

Tim Loewen, President of the Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association told the League, “The state is typically responsible for addressing state policy and funding for services to runaway and homeless youth. Local communities are responsible for providing collaborative services to address the issue. Parents are responsible to provide a safe home for their children whether that is with them or with others such as relatives or friends. Parents should also be responsible to pay back some or all of the services their families receive.”

As to what these services are, Tim Loewen says, “In most communities services are limited or non-existent. Some larger counties or communities may have private/nonprofit agencies that provide for short-term shelter and limited services to runaway children and their parents. A few county juvenile departments have shelter programs. These services are oftentimes reflective of local community policy and funding. There are no statutory mandates for services or funding.”

Until 2005, when the Oregon Legislature directed the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) to develop state policies for serving homeless and runaway youth,18no single state department had responsibility for guiding decision-making about programs for these youth. Nevertheless, both government and nongovernmental organizations have provided some assistance to homeless youth in education, housing, health and human services and have established a number of community programs designed for them. The major services and programs are described in the following sections:

EDUCATION

The federal McKinney-Vento Actwas passed by Congress in 1987 to establish a Homeless Education Program in the public schools. It was reauthorized in 2002 as part of No Child Left Behind. The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) coordinates funds coming to Oregon school districts through this program.

All districts receiving funds under Title I, Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act must reserve a portion of those funds to assist homeless students. ODE receives approximately $600,000 per year under the Act, distributing more than 75% of these funds to school districts as subgrants. ODE uses the remaining 25% to monitor programs throughout the state

Besides facilitating school enrollment, liaisons serve as homeless student advocates to see that these students receive needed services – extra tutoring, school transportation and referrals for shelter, health care and counseling – and acting as an emergency contact if there is no other adult in a supervisory role in their lives. Clearly, the McKinney-Vento liaison can be an important advocate for homeless young people who attend school. In 2004-2005, 1,622 unaccompanied homeless youth were enrolled in Oregon’s schools.19

As the following examples indicate, private sources have also contributed to educational efforts on behalf of homeless youth:

HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT

Perhaps most important is the federal Supportive Housing Program, also authorized by McKinney-Vento legislation and complemented by the state’s Homeless Assistance Program. Requests for funding are made by local agencies as part of a Continuum of Care and go through OHCS. The Homeless Survey and One-Night Shelter Counts provide the statistics needed to determine the distribution of funds. Agencies receiving grants under this program may use them for emergency shelters or for temporary or long-term residences especially designed for homeless people who have problems with addiction or mental illness. Additional services may be offered—health, education, employment—to encourage the homeless to live independently. OHCS also offers HOME Tenant-Based Assistance, which enables an agency to pay the rent on a six-month or yearly basis for a homeless person 18 or older.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

The Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) is the principal state agency responsible for providing health, financial aid and welfare services for Oregon’s citizens. These are among its divisions:

If a youth has been removed from his or her home and is in the custody of the Department of Human Services, the youth may be placed in a shelter, a certified foster home, or the home of adult relatives or friends whom the Department has authorized as suitable. Residential treatment programs for youth with behavioral problems are also an option. Under the federal Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, the Department has provided grants to agencies for Independent Living services – assistance with housing, counseling, education, training, and applications for food stamps and health care – for youth older than 14 who have been in foster care at least six months to help with their transition from foster care.

If a youth is homeless, he or she may apply for food stamps through the Self-sufficiency office as a family of one and apply for the Oregon Health Plan.20 After age 18 young people are ineligible for the Oregon Health Plan unless they have been qualified as disabled, pregnant or a parenting teen. A pregnant or parenting teen also is eligible for a financial grant through Self-sufficiency; the teenager’s parents are not responsible for the support of any grandchild. DHS refers youth and young adults to job training and education programs within the Self-sufficiency office, or to the regional Consortium of Community Services, or the Jobs Corps.

Mental health and addiction services are funded by DHS but delivered through county health departments. Most services are offered on an outpatient basis with parental involvement. Children and youth may be accepted in residential or inpatient treatment after professional evaluations and referrals. Both mental health and alcohol and drug treatment placements for children can be court mandated at the request of the county mental health department, county juvenile department, or state human service branches. Residential treatment may be funded by the Department’s Mental Health and Addiction Services or by the parents’ private insurance. An unaccompanied youth can request outpatient services. Parental/guardian permission may be required for eligibility for long-term treatment or residential programs.

The following are available for all of Oregon’s youth (not reserved for homeless youth) needing mental health services:

COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENTS

County Juvenile Departments handle runaway reports, drug offenses and any crimes committed by homeless teens. Although it is not against the law for juveniles to be homeless, if they are reported as runaways and the police consequently have them in custody, they cannot simply be released on their own. They are usually returned to their parents’ home, unless there is a report of physical abuse or serious neglect, in which case they are eligible for child protective services. Police may then look for shelter options or adults known to the particular child who can be responsible. Juvenile Department staff report that the longer youths remain runaways, the more likely they are to be involved in drug or alcohol abuse.

Juvenile Counselors refer homeless youth who have committed crimes to shelters, drug and alcohol residential treatment programs, mental health counseling and job training programs. Once a youth is under Juvenile Department supervision, he/she must live with an adult in a stable living situation. Counselors locate relatives who may be able to provide a home; guardianships are often initiated with relatives or family friends. If sexual or serious physical abuse of a youth occurs, Counselors report the abuse to the police and child welfare agency. The emancipation process is also handled by Juvenile Counselors, who can assist a qualified youth under 18 in filing the necessary legal paperwork.

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

The federal Department of Health and Human Services has played a significant role in the funding of homeless youth programs. Its grants have made it possible for private, nonprofit agencies to establish community health clinics and programs to serve homeless and runaway youth. The Department’s Family and Youth Services Bureau has helped communities initiate programs in three areas: basic centers, transitional living and street outreach. The Bureau’s grants have made it possible for agencies to locate the youth who need their services; provide them with basic food, clothing and counseling; and offer them housing assistance for up to 18 months. Grantees are expected to coordinate their efforts with the McKinney-Vento homeless assistance program in the schools.

The following is a brief description of the major programs that these grants have helped produce with substantial financial support from city and county governments, as well as foundations, business and other private groups:

Although all but one of these programs has been listed by city, they usually serve a countywide population and rely for funding on a variety of sources in addition to federal grants. The Homeless Youth Service Continuum of Care in Portland, for example, relies on federal, state and county funds plus private donations and active support from the business community, which was instrumental in initiating New Avenues for Youth. The Northwest Health Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation have supported both the Portland program and Eugene’s Looking Glass Youth and Family Services, which enabled the Eugene agency to combine with four other agencies and add medical, mental health and addiction treatment to the mix of benefits available. Volunteers in the Eugene program have been trained and supervised under a grant from the Job Corps, while an AmeriCorps grant has paid youth in the program’s alternative school for their community service work.

Many agencies are members of their local United Way. They also look to individual donations, faith-based groups, philanthropic organizations and various foundations for additional grants and support. Among these are the Meyer Memorial Trust; the Collins Foundation, Levi Strauss Foundation, Paul Allen Foundation, Juan Young Foundation, Spirit Mountain Community Fund, Ford Family Foundation, REI, Weyerhauser, Microsoft, Soroptimists, Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs.

THE OREGON COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

In response to the report and recommendations of the Oregon Homeless and Runaway Work Group23, the Oregon Legislature in 2005 directed the Oregon Commission on Children and Families (CCF) to develop a “comprehensive and coordinated approach for services and support for runaway and homeless youth and their families.” The process, conducted jointly with other agencies and advisory committees, is to be completed by January 1, 2007, with the CCF making its recommendations in a report to the Governor and the Legislature. CCFs in each county are expected to consider the “needs, resources and support for runaway and homeless youth and their families” in developing their comprehensive plans, and they are to provide information to the Oregon Commission on the barriers to effective service “that result from existing state level policies.”24

This mandate is in keeping with the Commission on Children and Families’ mission: to support communities in addressing their needs through collaboration and to provide funding for early intervention and prevention programs, to strengthen families, and to target high-risk children to develop positive skills. CCFs have worked to establish links among agencies and have helped to initiate programs. In Josephine County, for example, a Homeless Youth Task Force of private and public agencies was able to hire a Homeless Youth Advocate to serve as an outreach worker and, with additional funds from the Carpenter Foundation, spearhead a drive to establish a homeless/runaway youth center. In Josephine County, as in other counties, this collaboration has meant working with faith-based organizations, which frequently have taken the lead in establishing shelters and providing meals, clothing and basic necessities for the homeless, with the Oregon Food Bank as a major resource.

Each county CCF decides how to spend its funds on the most needed local programs, and there is no mandate for services to be the same across the state, nor are there targeted dollars for homeless youth programs. Instead, the CCFs have relied on various funding streams, some of which can be used to help homeless teens:

CCF requires outcome data from any agency program it funds. Renewal is based on these outcome reports, community needs and available funds.

The most likely sources of CCF funding for communities to use for homeless, runaway, or abandoned youth are Youth Investment Funds, Family Preservation, and Juvenile Crime Prevention funds. It should be noted that the Commission System has both dedicated and community-driven funding sources: Relief Nurseries and Healthy Start funding is dedicated to preventing abuse and neglect in very young children, while use of the Children, Youth and Families Fund is based on the community’s own plans and priorities.

FUNDING PROBLEMS AND SERVICE GAPS

It is difficult to track and understand the sources of funds (federal, state, county, city, foundations, business donations and private individuals) that support homeless youth services. Funds are directed to different age groups – up to age 18, from 12 to 18, or over 18 – and funding support and providers vary from city to city and county to county. What they share in common, however, are cutbacks across the board, which have affected services in all areas, including programs for homeless youth.

School districts report that Title I funds are being reduced, and teachers have to volunteer additional time to tutor students. The staff assigned as homeless student liaisons through the McKinney-Vento program – principals, truant officers, superintendents, and counselors – have other job responsibilities and may not have enough time to gain the trust of homeless students. Where liaisons have been able to devote enough time to the assignment, they can be among the most significant adults in a homeless student’s life – a lifeline to services and, often, survival.

It is important to note that the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Program is directed to serve all homeless children, including those under 12 and children and youth living with their families. Not surprisingly, unaccompanied youth, who fit our definition of homeless/runaways, comprise only a small percentage of the total listed as homeless students. The impact this program has on the homeless who are the subject of this study is limited because so many have no connection with their schools. If they are not in school or do not disclose their homelessness, they do not benefit from the liaison’s services and resources.

The current focus of federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding is on chronically homeless adults with disabilities. Many of HUD’s other funding programs are either geared toward youth 18 or older or are loan programs to agencies, not grants. The Homeless Shelter Nightcount conducted in January 2005, for example, showed that only 123 unaccompanied youth (ages 12-17) were in shelters funded by Oregon Housing and Community Services, the state agency that administers HUD funds; 655, however, were in homeless shelters with one or two parents. Applicants for HUD’s Section VIII housing vouchers, which subsidize rents for low-income families, must be at least 18-years-old and the wait is three to four years for applications to be considered. In Eugene, the city reported 10 percent cuts in its Community Development Block grants.

Erinn Kelley-Siel, the Governor’s Advisor on Health and Human Services, noted that because the federal government has reduced funding and shifted priorities, the state has had to backfill or cut services. Funds for Medicaid and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) funds have been cut, as have grants from the federal Family and Youth Services Bureau.

When a federal grant to Community Works in Medford was decreased from $150,000 to $23,000, one program was terminated, another was severely limited, and a third had to charge low-income clients for continued service.

After 1995, the DHS decreased services for teenagers who were neglected but not abused. Ramona Foley, Deputy Director for Children, Adults and Families, said that the agency made a budget-driven choice. The number of children in custody has increased since 2001 to the highest point in Oregon history. Ms. Foley said that if a safety assessment indicates a threat of immediate harm, with the court’s consent, the local branches are directed to take custody of teenagers.

Ramona Foley is concerned that homeless youth are the symptom of a larger problem. More than half of dependency cases are neglect, with 70% of neglect cases coming from parents with drug addictions. Oregon’s foster care placement rate is twice the national average. One-third of foster-care children come from TANF recipients.

Agency staff in Deschutes County report that the Oregon Health Plan has cut all but residential drug treatment programs, and they feel that state budget cuts have “watered down” all required services. With agencies forced to cut personnel, the comment often heard from service providers in Deschutes County is that “caseloads are so heavy, staff are reaching the breaking point. Too many staff come for six months and then leave.” Staff sees “a downward spiral.”

Funds for the Commission on Children and Families were cut 70% in the 2005-07 biennium budget, which has resulted in a loss of funding for local shelter and prevention programs. One of the homeless youth programs in Eugene lost a yearly allocation of $60,000 and had to discontinue its day program because of the decreased level of Youth Investment Funds. It has now simply become a night residence for fewer kids. Homeless and runaway youth funds have diminished to 10-20% of what they were six or eight years ago because of legislative budget cuts in the past three sessions. Local CCF agencies are hard-pressed to stretch limited resources across multiple kinds of programming for children, youth, and families.

Funding problems are caused not only by diminished resources, but also by the complexity of the system involved in securing funds. Much of the funding for homeless youth programs depends on grants. Getting them from so many different sources can be a complex, time-consuming process. Different grants may have different requirements and many staff hours must be devoted to meeting them – staff time that otherwise might be spent serving clients. Another problem is that grants, especially government grants, have so many requirements and restrictions that to conform to them, programs have to shift focus, modify goals and add services, plus time and staff. Grants may be so restrictive, particularly about clients’ ages, that youth in the same program may not all qualify for the same service. Priority is often given to younger children, leaving older homeless youth without the service. Grants are usually for a limited time, and upon expiration, the whole process starts again. Without consistent funding, it is impossible to know with certainty that a program will continue and that a caseworker who has only just recently established rapport with a group of teenagers will be able to see them for the next six months or a year.

With such “a highly mobile client population,” in the words of one Lane County worker, “a lack of stable funding leads to a lack of consistent programming and resource availability.” Continuing these projects and the agencies that staff them has required a heavy dose of public and private funds. With so many different funding sources, it requires time just to seek them out.

Michael Kurtz, former CCF Policy and Program Manager, noted that “It is the state’s responsibility to assure that policies do not present barriers to support and services.” He observed that budgets should be set at a level appropriate to community needs. Communities should hold each other accountable for the care of children and youth, while parents have the responsibility of meeting the physical, mental and emotional needs of their children. Policies should reflect and support parents and communities in accomplishing those goals.

WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK?

Given adequate funds, service providers believe they know what works and what doesn’t work for this population. The most often heard comment they made to League members was that these young people need a connection to a significant and appropriate adult. In addition, the professionals suggested the following from their experience:

Outcomes are sometimes disappointing and not necessarily because of weaknesses in the programs. Teenagers make choices that are not always in their best interests. We need to provide safe places for them to stay, but we can’t make them stay there. If they choose not to cooperate, it may not be the fault of the service providers, the system or the laws. Oftentimes, these youth come from families with anti-social attitudes. If they are charged with crimes or drug offenses, then they can be ordered to stay in a stable residence or juvenile facility, interventions they cannot choose to ignore and that often show some good results.

The professionals say that if the problems of these youth are ignored, these young people could become long-time residents of jails, prisons, or treatment centers rather than contributing citizens. Providing an environment to support and encourage a thriving adolescent is in our best interests. Success can happen, as it did for Belinda.

Belinda, now age 19, fled her home determined to make a different life for herself. Prior to her flight life was chaotic: enrollment in a variety of non-accredited “private” schools, parental drug abuse, a variety of substandard living conditions, increasing levels of poverty, and eventually sexual abuse. At 16 her parents separated. She lived with her mother and younger brother in cars or motel rooms or her father’s motel room. After she was raped by her father and an older brother, she ran away with an older man, a “boyfriend.” She was 18. They got off the bus in Roseburg and flopped at a friend’s house. Eventually Belinda left this man and found shelter in a transitional living facility, the Casa de Belen. With the help of mentors and counselors, Belinda was encouraged to enroll in GED classes and pursue her dream of becoming a paramedic. She completed her GED, found employment in a medical office, has moved into her own apartment, and is planning on attending the local community college to pursue a career as an emergency medical technician.

TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM

In an ideal world all children would have loving, nurturing, and supportive parents with unlimited resources enabling all young people to develop into healthy, competent adults. Unfortunately this is not an ideal world. Not all parents fit the model, nor can the state be a perfect substitute for them. But League members have observed several promising programs that can begin to provide the care and encouragement homeless youth want and need.

Portland’s Homeless Youth Continuum, a collaboration among three private agencies and Multnomah County, is considered to be a national model of excellence utilizing best practices. Often nonprofits work separately to provide services. Portland's Outside In, New Avenues for Youth and Janus Youth Programs were at one time no exception. However, in 1998, county-funded homeless youth services were redesigned because of a report citing a fragmented and uncoordinated service delivery system and a lack of accountability for youth outcomes. The new configuration resulted in the forming of a "Continuum" of services for homeless youth with coordinated services, a shared data collection system, and shared outcomes. In 2003, the Continuum modified its service delivery system to one that engages youth more rapidly into services. Today the Homeless Youth Service Continuum offers its young people three things: 1) safety off the streets, 2) assistance in meeting basic needs; and 3) transitional services to help them leave the streets permanently. The three agencies collaborate by means of the following:

PROVIDING FULL SERVICES

When evaluating those services that homeless youth are not accessing, it can be constructive to look beyond existing structures and determine what is needed for a person to develop and thrive. Appropriate services begin by meeting a youth’s basic needs such as food and shelter; then health care, case management and mentoring. In addition, education, vocational training, work experience and community interaction must follow before a youth can attain self-sufficiency.

Barbara Seljan, Consultant for the Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association, insists, “We know what to do, but need consistent funding and to use the right strategies.” She believes that every county should be required to have a runaway and homeless program that includes these elements:

Providing full services also can mean helping families deal with the stresses and problems that may cause youth to leave home and become homeless. Supportive services include family crisis counseling, relief nurseries, and parenting education. Parents also often need subsidized day care for their children, education and job training, mental health and addiction services, low-cost health care and affordable housing, Many of these services are available through state programs or local Commissions on Children and Families, but they are not consistently available in all communities. Cuts in state funding for the Commission on Children and Families and the Department of Human Services have diminished the funds available for these programs, as well as for homeless youth services.

As communities consider how to best serve homeless youth, we should not be locked into a model nor constricted by past practices but look to new systems and designs that hold promise. Programs need to be tailored to fit specific communities and the problems their homeless youth face. We must also consider the level of funding required to adequately and consistently support programs and services for our youth and families, to ensure that all Oregon's children have opportunities to grow into healthy, productive citizens.

The League acknowledges the many caring, responsible, and hard-working professionals who serve these youth without enough time, money, or people power. Time and time again the League heard frustration and anger in their voices as they described their efforts to provide support for homeless teens as resources diminish. They recognize they are working with vulnerable and “fixable” youth and time is of the essence, but they encounter many obstacles and barriers. Community dialogues and partnerships with these youth-supporting organizations can reduce some of these barriers.

The League appreciates the honesty, candor and caring that was expressed during the interviews, not only by service providers and policy makers, but also by the youth themselves. Without their assistance the study would not have been possible.

APPENDIX I
RECENT HISTORY OF SHELTER CARE IN OREGON

The Oregon Children and Youth Services Commission in 1987 started prevention services with funds for juvenile status offenders (runaway or alcohol and marijuana use) distributed to counties on a per capita basis. The next legislative session reduced funds and removed the categorical designation. Only 1,800 juveniles were served by runaway and homeless youth shelters in 1988. Children’s Services Division, however, provided shelter options for teenagers at that time.

The Oregon Commission on Children and Families (CCF) was established in 1991 with local advisory groups formed to study community needs in each county. At that time, Great Start (ages 0-10), the Student Retention Initiative and the Continuum of Care Services were the program favorites. In 1993, Children’s Services Division transferred responsibility for children at the lowest risk (Level 7) to local county government. Level 7 was defined as teenagers who are out of control or have emotional problems. Less than half the funds appropriated for this population were sent to CCF for distribution to counties. The justification was the belief that the teens could be served less expensively in the community rather than in expensive residential placements. The counties were not required to provide shelter care and services for juvenile offenders in order to get CCF funding.

Senate Bill 1 in the 1995 Legislature abolished the Children’s Services Division and formed two new agencies, the Services to Children and Families for dependent children (victims of abuse and neglect) and the Oregon Youth Authority (OYA) for delinquent children (youth adjudicated for a criminal offense). Both newly formed agencies retained foster care homes and residential treatment placements, but the OYA assumed responsibility for the Juvenile Corrections facilities and parole supervision. OYA provided placements only for those adjudicated youth offenders who were committed to the custody for a limited duration. Services to Children and Families continued to serve younger children who were abused or neglected and denied placements to older youth who were not seriously abused.

The State’s Office for Services to Children and Families and CCF established an Intergovernmental Agreement to reimburse CCF for Youth Investment funds expended on Level 7 programs to serve chronically acting out or neglected (not delinquent) teens, including 11-12 year-olds. The local CCF boards determine the use of the Youth Investment funds.

In 2001, the Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) took over health services, services for seniors and people with disabilities, and programs for children and families. Services to Children and Families later developed into Safety and Permanency for Children and became part of the DHS Division of Children, Adults and Family. That Division recently was restructured and is now divided into (1) Self-sufficiency and Child Safety and (2) Permanency for Children. DHS has been underfunded since the budget crisis in 2003, and the current legislative interim committee has been reviewing the budget deficit for the agency.

The Public Safety agencies also have been underfunded because of this budget crisis. The Oregon Youth Authority closed 200 correctional facility beds and lost funding for community foster homes. The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission had administered the Juvenile Crime Prevention (JCP) funds, which went to counties for local programs. These state general funds were cut 70% in the 2005-07 legislative budget. The JCP program staff and funding were transferred to CCF in July 2005. JCP funds are available to community agencies through the local county CCF proposal process. (Alternatively, the federal funds from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention funds were transferred from CCF to the Criminal Justice Commission. These grant funds are available to county Juvenile Departments based upon written proposals.)

The Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association meets annually for a conference, forms committees as needed, and sets a legislative agenda every two years. Shelter care for runaway youth has been on top of the Juvenile Crime Prevention agenda since 1997. Juvenile Departments do not deal with homeless teens, as homelessness is not illegal. However, broader agency work groups envision shelter care as available to other agency clients through a flexible pool of funds. A Shelter Services Partnership held a retreat in November 1999 and published a survey in 2000. One of its findings was that 18 out of 36 counties used JCP funds for shelter care.

The Juvenile Department Directors Association held a Summit in September of 2004 and concluded that shelter care should be a part of the state and local continuum of juvenile justice services. Base funding should be provided by the state but managed by the community. The organization set a legislative priority in May 2006 to restore JCP funds and to fund community services for sex offenders, mental health and alcohol and drug screenings, additional child welfare foster homes and DHS/OYA shelter beds.

APPENDIX II

HOMELESS YOUTH SERVICE CONTINUUM, SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The Portland Homeless Youth Continuum has designed a system of care that maximizes the resources and programming that are offered at all the agencies. A youth can enter through any of the partner’s doors, at any time and get appropriate help. The three agencies coordinate on an ongoing basis to make sure that services provided meet individual youth needs.

APPENDIX III

INTERVIEWS AND OTHER CONTACTS

The League held telephone and personal meetings in homes and offices across the State. We were met with warm, caring, and professional individuals who have a heart for their missions. Without their honesty, candor, and willingness to talk with us, this report would not have been possible. We appreciate and applaud their consistent energy to make a difference for these young people. An extensive list of those individuals interviewed is available on the online report and its appendices. See www.lwvor.org.

We would especially like to thank members of the Oregon State Legislature who graciously shared their ideas with us about the role of the state in helping these neglected youth and their families. These legislators include Senators Laurie Monnes Anderson, Alan Bates, Kate Brown, Jeff Kruse and Jackie Winters, and Representatives Gordon Anderson, Kevin Cameron, Billy Dalto, Sara Gelser, Mitch Greenlick, Bruce Hanna, Susan Morgan, Dennis Richardson and Carolyn Tomei.

COMMISSIONS ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES: Oregon, and county commissions in Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Coos, Deschutes, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Union and Wallowa Counties

EDUCATION: Oregon Department of Education, Chemeketa Community College,
Linn-Benton Community College, Southwestern Oregon Community College, Armadillo Technical Institute, Community Transitional School, LaGrande High School, Willamette ESD, Insight, Portland Night High School, Reedsport High School
School Districts – Ashland, Bandon, Bend LaPine, Bethel. Brookings-Harbor, Butte Falls, Canby, Central Point, Central Curry, Colton, Coos Bay, Coquille, Corvallis, Eagle Point Estacada, Gladstone, Grants Pass, Lake Oswego, Lincoln County, Medford, Molalla River, Monroe, North Bend, North Clackamas, Oregon City, Oregon Trail, Philomath, Phoenix-Talent, Port Orford-Langlois, Powers, Prospect, Reynolds, Rogue River, Salem-Keizer, Three Rivers, West Linn-Wilsonville

AGENCIES: Access, Inc., Alternative Youth Activities, Ashland Family YMCA, Be One for Kids, Bethlehem Inn, Boys & Girls Aid Society, Boys and Girls Clubs, Bridges to Success, CARDVA; Legal Referral Program, Cascade Youth Services (The Loft), Children’s Advocacy Center, ; Choices Counseling, Coalition for Kids, Community Outreach Inc., Community Works, Dept. of Youth Services (Wallowa County), Eugene Mission, Food Share Program, Gospel Rescue Mission, Grandma’s House, Hosea Youth Services Project. Illinois Valley Family Coalition, Inn Between, Integral Youth Services, Jackson Street Youth Shelter, Janus Youth Programs, Josephine County Homeless Youth Task Force, Kids Unlimited, Latino Americano, Looking Glass, Magdalene Home for Pregnant & Parenting Teens,; Monmouth/Independence YMCA, My Sister’s Place, Neighborhoods for Kids, New Avenues for Youth, North Curry County Families and Children Center, On Track, Outside In, p:ear, Portland. PEP (Parent Enhancement Program), Ranch SOCC-ETS, Safe and Sound , The Salvation Army, Samaritan House, South Coast Independent Living Services (SCILS), ; St. Vincent DePaul, Springwater and Home Safe Transitional, St. John Bosco House, Eugene Service Station, Teen Post, THE: Temporary Help in an Emergency, White Bird, Willamette Family Treatment Center, Women’s Safety and Resource Center, Youth Center, YES (Youth Entering Sobriety) House

JUVENILE DEPARTMENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUDICIARY: Oregon Juvenile Department Directors Association, CASA Director, Juvenile Rights Project. Coos County Adult Parole and Probation, Coos County Asst. DA, Coos County Sheriff’s Deputy, Jackson County Community Family Court, Jackson County Juvenile Justice Dept., Jackson County Sheriff’s Dept., Lane County Circuit Court Juvenile Judge, Lincoln County CASA, Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge, Lincoln County Juvenile Authority, Local Public Safety Coordinating Council
Police Departments: Ashland, Corvallis, Eagle Point, Eugene, Medford, Portland, Shady Cove
Juvenile Departments: Benton County, Clackamas County, Deschutes County, and Polk County

CITY/COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES AND HEALTH DEPARTMENTS: Benton County Health Dept., Deschutes County Health Dept., Jackson County Dept. of Health & Human Services, Benton Linn Lincoln Community Services Consortium, Clackamas County Social Services, Coos County Mental Health, Jackson County Mental Health, Eugene Dept. of Youth Services, Healthy Start, Marion County Children’s Behavioral Health, Multnomah County Dept. of School & Community Partnerships, Portland Homeless Youth Oversight Committee

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

OTHER: Ashland Parks & Recreation Dept., Ashland Christian Fellowship, St. Matthew’s Catholic Church, Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, Downtown Eugene Library, Eugene Planning and Development Dept., Food for Lane County, HIV Alliance, Inter-faith Care Community of Ashland, Job Council, La Clinica del Valle, Mediation Works, Oregon Legal Services, Oregon Family Support Network, Peace House, Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon, Safety Net, South Coast Business Employment, St James-Coquille Church, St. Paul’s-Powers Episcopal Church, United Way, Youth Focus, Wellsprings, White City Community Improvement Association

Dona Bolt, Oregon Department of Education
Caitlin Campbell – Multnomah County (including responses from Janus Youth Programs, New Avenues for Youth, and Outside In)
Galen Phipps – Looking Glass Administration - Station 7

PUBLISHED BY THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF OREGON EDUCATON FUND, October 2006

(c) Copyright 2006, League of Women Voters of Oregon Education Fund
1330 12th St. SE, Suite 200
Salem, OR 97302
Phone: 503-581-5722
Fax: 503-581-9403
email: lwvor@lwvor.org
web: www.lwvor.org

Study Committee: Judith Benjamin, Shirley Lambelet, Jean Lasater, Karen Nibler, Sue Trotter, Margaret Noel, and Linda Clary (chair)

Editing Committee: Judith Benjamin, Merle Bottge, Linda Clary, Kate Culbertson, Jane Gigler, Sally Hollemon, Ellen Maddex, Margaret Noel, Elsa Struble

Contributing Local Leagues:
Ashland
Corvallis
Clackamas County
Columbia County
Coos County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Klamath County
Lincoln County
Lane County
Portland
Rogue Valley
Umpqua Valley

Production of this report was supported by a grant from the Ralph L. Smith Foundation and contributions from League of Women Voters members and friends.

Footnotes

1 Oregon’s legislature commissioned From Out of The Shadows to report on the extent of the homeless youth problem and the services needed.

2 The figure cited is based on 1,992 youth served in federally funded shelters X 12, as well as an informal survey of the Oregon Homeless and Runaway Youth Coalition’s membership.

3 A Federal law that requires that homeless youth have access to education; see the section on Education.

4 Moore, Jan. “Unaccompanied and Homeless Youth.” Review of Literature (1995-2005). National Center for Homeless Education. 2005.

5 Dr. Susan Pickerel. “What We Should Know About What Every Kid Needs.” Invisible Youth Summit. Douglas County Fairgrounds. October 7, 2005.

6 A list of these materials is available on the League of Women Voters of Oregon website, www.lwvor.org/studyreport.htm.

7 See Appendix III.

8 The stories in this report are based on true stories, told by youth and service providers. Names have been changed.

9 Oregon Homeless and Runaway Youth Work Group, From Out of the Shadows, Feb. 2005, pp. 10-11.

10 Basic Center Programs are community-based programs funded by the Family and Youth Services Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to address the immediate needs of runaway and homeless youth. They provide emergency shelter, food, clothing, counseling, and referrals for health care.

11 The financial reasons cited were “couldn’t afford the rent, were unemployed, had been evicted, had no credit, or a poor credit history.” Other reasons youth mentioned for being homeless were “domestic violence, being kicked out of the home, using drugs and alcohol, and parents’ drug and alcohol abuse and criminal history.”

12 The Hunger Relief Task Force reported that many Oregon families find that mortgage or rental bills claim more than 60% of their income. The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development defines affordable housing as rent or mortgage payments that consume no more than 30% of a family’s income. The Oregon Food Bank survey found that 51% of respondent households spent more than 50% of income on rent, 25% spent more than 75% on rent and 25% had to move to find affordable housing.

13 Oregon Runaway and Homeless Coalition Work Group testimony to Oregon legislature in 2005.

14 The Associated Press. “Oregon foster-care follow-up is lacking.” Mail Tribune. Oct. 6, 2006.

15 This number represents the number of gangs reported to the Oregon State Intelligence Network (OSIN) for purposes of intelligence collection. The count does not discriminate between types of gangs (e.g., prison, OMG, criminal street gangs) and does not reflect the actual number of gangs on the street. Not all Oregon law enforcement agencies use OSIN because of limited financial resources and personnel.

16 The Juvenile Code recognizes the legal rights of a child to permanency with a safe family; freedom from physical, sexual or emotional abuse or exploitation; and freedom from substantial neglect of basic needs. If a parent or guardian fails to fulfill these duties, the court may remove the child on a temporary or permanent basis. The parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children, including secular and religious education, health care decisions and discipline of their children. The state policy is to offer reunification services to parents and guardians to make return of the child possible. If return is not possible or not in the best interests of the child, the state has the obligation to provide an alternative safe and permanent home for the child.

17 Oregon law mandates that people who have frequent contact with children, such as counselors, teachers, and medical personnel, report suspected child abuse.

18 The CCF report is due January 1, 2007. For more information, see section on Commission on Children and Families.

19 The law’s definition of homeless students includes those living with their families who are homeless. OED therefore cites a much higher figure when it refers to its homeless student population.

20 If a youth is under 18, DHS may charge the parents for financial assistance or health care coverage, or deny a claim if the parent has insurance coverage for the child.

21 Bob Nikkel, Deputy Director in the Department of Human Services Office of Mental Health and Addiction Services.

22 See link for further description and analysis. Also, Appendix II contains a system overview diagram.

23 Work group membership included the Oregon Homeless and Runaway Youth Coalition (OHRYC), Oregon Commission on Children and Families (OCCF) and Department of Human Services Children, Adults and Families (DHS/CAF).

24 Oregon Legislature House Bill 2202 - http://www.leg.state.or.us/05reg/measpdf/hb2200.dir/hb2202

25 Wraparound services refers to an individually designed set of services provided to clients that includes treatment services and personal support services or any other services necessary to support the client. Wraparound services are developed through an interagency collaborative approach. Wraparound services are a particularly effective approach in helping children served by multiple systems.

26 The Portland model is described in more detail in Appendix II.

27 Also provides limited services to young adults, ages 21 to 24.

Studies & Publications

OREGON’S HOMELESS YOUTH

“These are the most vulnerable kids in the world, and
they’re highly fixable.” …Dennis Morrow, Janus Youth Programs

INTRODUCTION

WHO ARE THESE YOUTH AND WHY ARE THEY HOMELESS?

WHAT DID THE YOUNG PEOPLE TELL US?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE YOUTH?

WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AND HOW ARE THEY FUNDED?

EDUCATION

HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENTS

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

THE OREGON COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

FUNDING PROBLEMS AND SERVICE GAPS

WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK?

TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM

PROVIDING FULL SERVICES

APPENDIX I
RECENT HISTORY OF SHELTER CARE IN OREGON

APPENDIX II

HOMELESS YOUTH SERVICE CONTINUUM, SYSTEM OVERVIEW

APPENDIX III

INTERVIEWS AND OTHER CONTACTS

Footnotes

Healthy, Curry Coastal Pilot, Sept. 17, 2005

National Alliance to End Homelessness Online News. Seattle Housing Project Targets Alcohol Related Street Homelessness, Oct. 18, 2002

	LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS^® OF OREGON
	Studies & Publications

Studies & Publications

OREGON’S HOMELESS YOUTH

“These are the most vulnerable kids in the world, and they’re highly fixable.” …Dennis Morrow, Janus Youth Programs

INTRODUCTION

WHO ARE THESE YOUTH AND WHY ARE THEY HOMELESS?

WHAT DID THE YOUNG PEOPLE TELL US?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE YOUTH?

WHAT SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE AND HOW ARE THEY FUNDED?

EDUCATION

HOUSING AND SUPPLEMENTAL SUPPORT

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

COUNTY JUVENILE DEPARTMENTS

COMMUNITY PROGRAMS

THE OREGON COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

FUNDING PROBLEMS AND SERVICE GAPS

WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK?

TOWARD A NEW PARADIGM

PROVIDING FULL SERVICES

APPENDIX I RECENT HISTORY OF SHELTER CARE IN OREGON

APPENDIX II

HOMELESS YOUTH SERVICE CONTINUUM, SYSTEM OVERVIEW

APPENDIX III

INTERVIEWS AND OTHER CONTACTS

Footnotes

Healthy, Curry Coastal Pilot, Sept. 17, 2005

National Alliance to End Homelessness Online News. Seattle Housing Project Targets Alcohol Related Street Homelessness, Oct. 18, 2002

“These are the most vulnerable kids in the world, and
they’re highly fixable.” …Dennis Morrow, Janus Youth Programs

APPENDIX I
RECENT HISTORY OF SHELTER CARE IN OREGON