A Demographic and Behavioral Profile of Homeless Youth in New York City: Implications for AIDS Outreach and Prevention

Abstract

Rapid changes in the world market economy have served to destabilize many local institutions, widening the gap between the rich and the poor and undermining viability of key social and economic institutions such as family and household. Among those most deeply affected by this displacement are children and adolescents, many of whom are forced to leave family institutions before they have acquired the skills and maturity needed to become economically self-sufficient. Fending for themselves amid the vagaries of the underworld of virtually every major city in the world, these youths are at exceptional risk for a wide range of poor health outcomes and premature death. While perhaps a familiar sight in many non-Western countries, this phenomenon also has emerged in the industrialized world, a fact that accounts for the rise in exposure to violence and disease among street-involved youth and young adults in nations such as the United States. There are as yet few empirical data available about the nature of these youth populations or the constellation of behaviors that place them at increased risk for disease outcomes. In this report we construct a demographic and behavioral profile of the homeless youth population in New York City, particularly as behavioral patterns relate to risk associated with HIV infection.

A Comparison of Risk Factors for Sexual Victimization Among Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Homeless Young Adults

“…It is possible that as a result of their lack of family support (D'Augelli, 1998) and the fact that sexual minority youth are more likely to run away or be expelled from home than their heterosexual peers (Cochran et al, 2002;Martin & Hetrick, 1988;Remafedi, 1987;Savin-Williams, 1994), they may be less likely to return home and hence have fewer resources and support available. As a result, they may be more likely to trade sex to support themselves compared to their heterosexual peers, which is consistent with previous research (Clatts & Davis, 1999;Kipke et al, 1997a;Moon et al, 2000;Whitbeck et al, 2004). It is likely that trading sex puts these young people in dangerous and vulnerable situations with little protection from violent customers and others who may exploit them Weisberg, 1985).…”

“…For example, many young people who run away from home find themselves on the streets with little education and few job skills, and are often forced to find a way to support themselves; as a result, some homeless youth have turned to trading sex (Hagan & McCarthy, 1997;. Because sexual minority youth exhibit higher rates of trading sex than heterosexual youth (Clatts & Davis, 1999;Kipke et al, 1997a;Kipke, O'Connor, Palmer, & MacKenzie, 1995;Moon et al, 2000;Whitbeck et al, 2004), they are at especially high risk for victimization compared to their heterosexual peers. This higher risk exists because trading sex and prostitution leads to high visibility and puts homeless youth in dangerous and vulnerable situations with little protection from violent customers and others who may try to exploit them Weisberg, 1985).…”

Social network characteristics and risky sexual and drug related behaviors among homeless young adults

“…Sexual risk taking tends to vary by gender (Rotheram-Borus et al, 1992;Booth et al, 1999;MacKellar et al, 2000;Tyler et al, 2001;Montgomery et al, 2002), sexual orientation (Clatts and Davis, 1999), age (Clatts and Davis, 1999;Tyler et al, 2001;Whitbeck et al, 2001), and the frequency with which youth run from home (Janus et al, 1987;Ennett et al, 1999b;Tyler et al, 2000a).…”

The impact of an integrated treatment on HIV risk behavior among homeless youth: a randomized controlled trial

“…Because of age related changes in HIV risk among homeless youth, Rotheram-Borus et al (2003) assert that age should be controlled in all analyses and it was controlled in the current study as well. Similar to Clatts and Davis (1999), the current study examined HIV risk behaviors among younger (14-18) and older (19)(20)(21)(22) youth.…”