Descriptive Overview: African American Youth in Transitional Living Programs

1. Descriptive Overview:African American Youth in Transitional Living Programs Von E. Nebbitt, PhD Assistant Professor E. Franklin Frazier Center for Social Work Research Howard University

2. Introduction • African American youth are one of our nation’s most vulnerable populations • They are: • Over-represented in Juvenile Justice System • Under-served by mental health community • Failed by public education • Second lease likely to be insured • Most likely to live in impoverish urban areas

3. Introduction • African American youth are also over-represented among runaway/homeless youth in urban areas • Being homeless probably increases their vulnerabilities exponentially • It is likely that runaway/homeless AA youth are more susceptible to gangs and involvement in alternative market activities: to wit, prostitution & drugs BUT WE DON’T KNOW THIS FOR SURE!

4. Introduction • The current state of Runaway/Homeless African American youth is ambiguous at best and totally unknown at worse • A thorough portrayal of this population is not readily available in the empirical literature • Therefore, a definitive statement about their physical, mental, academic and emotional status is not possible • A logical first step in this area of research is to began to pull together the pieces of this puzzle

5. Purpose • The purpose of this presentation is to provide a descriptive overview of African American youth in transitional living programs

6. Data Source Family & Youth Service Bureau’s (FYSB) Transitional Living Program (TLP) FY 2002 – FY2006 Transitional Living Program Provide homeless youth ages 16 to 21 with stable, safe longer-term residential services up to 18 months (or longer if the youth has not reached age 18)

7. Population Characteristics • Original data set includes 20391 • Includes five waves 2002 to 2006 • 33% (6617) African American • 57 % (11636) female • 78 % (16242) heterosexual

8. Subsample Criterion • African American youth • Complete data (i.e. entry, service and exit data) for all years • No repeat data (Only one visit for this youth within this data) • Resulted in subsample of 4263

9. What did we find?

10. Demographic Characteristics Data on age (date of birth) and sexual orientation did not convert to SPSS

11. Living Situation at Entry

12. Referral Source

13. Employment Status at Entry

14. Percent in Foster Care Youth in Foster Care Spent on Average 3.75 years in care

15. Percent in Juvenile Justice Involved Youth in Juvenile Justice System Spent on Average 4 years in system

16. School Status

17. Highest Grade Completed

18. Teen Parenthood

19. Limitations to this exploration • Some important indices lost in conversion • High number of missing observation on foster care and juvenile justice involvement • Wasn’t able to disaggregate to examine annual trends • Many indices are grouped (i.e., highest grade completed 9 – 12)

20. What do we know from TLP data? • Twice as many females use TLP • Most in TLP youth come from private residents • Very few of the youth have children • Most are in school of have graduated or have GEDs

21. What don’t we know from TLP data? • Actual scope of the population or the problem • Rate of runaway/homeless service use for African American youth • Individual, familial & community antecedence to runaway/homeless episodes • Factors that contribute to stable residency or independent living following an episode

22. Next Steps • Identify existing runaway/homeless youth data sets that included African American youth to attempt to understand the breadth and the scope of the problem • Prevalence and annual incidence of runaway / homelessness among African American youth • Set-up runaway / homeless surveillance systems in urban areas where African American youth are likely to hang-out (i.e., housing projects)

23. Thank You Any Questions?