To Understand, Interact

This will be my last entry this week. Thursday I am winging my way to Raleigh, North Carolina, and Friday I’ll be presenting Youth Development: A Winning Hand to Haven House Services ( http://www.havenhousenc.org ). I’ll be back with a new entry on Monday, July 2nd.

Driving into work today I was listening to a talk show while thinking about the upcoming presentation in Raleigh. I realized that what I teach -- working with young people -- is really somewhat of a rare occurrence. The talk show was focused on some new survey about America’s youth (I didn’t catch the actually survey -- it’s only a 10 minute drive to work), and the adults were lamenting how little they understand about young people and the choices and decisions they make. At one point, one of the adults made the statement: “I don’t really have any opportunity to interact with young people”.

I found this to be a very insightful statement, and probably one of the main reasons for whatever problems exist between young people and adults. We don’t interact. Much of the adult population has little or no real contact with young people. Those that do are generally in a role of authority; teachers, parents, counselors, case workers. Rarely do you see situations where young people and adults are colleagues, equals, peers. It’s no wonder we can relate -- there’s no basis for us to try.

Of course, I still find it strange that adults have difficulty understanding young people -- we all used to be one. Somehow we forget what being young was like when we age, which is a real shame. I might also point out that our lack of interaction is under adult control -- we could be creating opportunities for ourselves to interact with young people, we just don’t seem to do so very often. Maybe if we did, we wouldn’t so often lament the fact that we just don’t understand young people today …

A Little Reminder

I just returned from Seattle where I attended my partner’s graduation from Bastyr University, the Leadership Institute of Seattle, with a Masters in Applied Behavioral Science. Also with me watching her graduate were our son and daughter, our niece, and 3 very close friends who had been major supporters of Julia’s as she achieved this milestone. The faculty was all there, of course, as were hundreds of family and friends who were supporters of all the other graduates.

One of the speakers acknowledged the fact that this was a milestone for all of us. While it is the graduates receiving the degree, every family member and friend has a hand in that achievement. We were the ones who struggled with them, supported them, encouraged them, and laid the foundation upon which they now stand to receive their degree. And it was true – I know the group that came to watch Julia graduate often worked as hard as she did in pursuit of this goal.

This realization made me once again remember something that I all too often forget. The young men and women we work with in the foster care system, the juvenile justice system, the runaway and homeless youth system, and all those other ‘systems’ we place young people in, often are trying to achieve their milestones without the support of friends and family. Sure, those of us in the field who work with them try to provide support and encouragement, but on many levels we are unable to do so. We represent the ‘faculty’ in their journey. We are the teachers and the assessors – the ‘pass-ers’ and ‘fail-ers’. In fact, in many cases we are trying to distance them from those who serve as their friends and family, as we see many of them as ‘bad influences’.

So, my experience yesterday put another little reminder note into my head. Remember that the Youth Development Protective Factor of ‘Caring/supportive Relationships’ is not limited to the paid staff and volunteers within our programs. We can only do so much in the way of giving them the support and encouragement they need. We must also pay attention to their friends and family – for if we can’t strengthen that support system, we are sending them into the world missing a critical foundation for success.

Therapeutic Bubbology

NOTE: There will be no entries tomorrow (Friday) or Monday, as I am taking a long weekend for a family celebration. I’ll be back on Tuesday. In the meantime, I thought I’d share a brief article I wrote a few years back. Enjoy!

Whether I’m doing outreach/streetwork, counseling in an office setting, or simply sitting in traffic in my car, it is a rare moment indeed that I am without a supply of bubbles. That’s right -- bubbles, the liquid soap-like kind that you blow through a wand. They’ve been standard equipment in every program I’ve run since I discovered their therapeutic qualities.

Just what qualities might those be, you ask? Well, for one thing -- they’re stress-relieving. Blowing bubbles has an amazing calming effect that can really help put things into perspective. Former smokers have pointed out that watching the bubbles is quite similar to the thought-producing effects they used to get from watching the smoke curl off of their cigarettes. And in terms of making contact with young people, sit on a street corner blowing bubbles and it’s nearly guaranteed that they’ll make contact with you! That’s why bubbles always have a place in my outreach/streetwork packs. Some of the best conversations I’ve had with youth -- both on the streets and in an office -- have been over a jar of bubbles.

But I’m not kidding when I say that they can be used therapeutically. If you’re dealing with someone who is extremely upset -- reach for the bubbles. It seems to be an almost unconscious human response to blow bubbles if they are available. Once a person starts blowing bubbles they are, by the very act, taking deep breaths and exhaling slowly. Isn’t this exactly what we are taught in crisis intervention to help someone calm down? Yet how successful are you telling someone who is upset to take deep, regular breaths? Often, our instructions simply upset them more. But hand them a jar of bubbles and they begin to follow those instructions without being instructed. What more could you ask for?

Over the years I’ve become quite a connoisseur of bubbles, so I’ll leave you with some tips to help get you started.

What kind of bubbles should you use? The short answer is that any kind will do, but there is a brand that I recommend over others. That brand is Pustefix -- made in Germany but easily available in better toy stores everywhere. They are a bit more expensive than other brands, but the bubbles are more colorful, lighter, and longer lasting then any other brand I’ve tried. These qualities are especially important if you’re going to be using them outdoors. You can visit the Pustefix web site by following the link below (it will appear in German, but they have an ‘English’ link). While you’re there, check out the Bubble-Art section!

http://www.pustefix.de/

If price is a factor, you can get other types of bubbles much more cheaply -- the cheapest being those that you make yourself out of dish soap. 1 part Joy or Dawn to 8 parts water works really well! For stronger, longer-lasting bubbles, add 1 tablespoon of glycerin, available in any drugstore. Bubble solution will improve with age, so allow the mixture to sit in an open container for a day or so before use. But be careful about trying to save a few cents, Bubbles that don’t last, or leave a wet, soapy mess in your lap, may be stress-inducing as opposed to stress relieving.

Always buy containers that have the wand attached to the cap. Having to fish for the wand with your finger is messy and unpleasant. The best size container is the 2 ounce size -- large enough for a good supply of bubble mix, small enough to be easily carried -- and easily given away without too great of a loss. I like to keep a nice supply of 2-ounce containers handy (which I sometimes put my own labels on), and a bulk container of Pustefix to refill them.

Also strongly recommended are the ‘Little Kids’ brand no-spill bubble tumblers ( http://www.littlekidsinc.com ). They come in both large and mini sizes. I keep a large one on my desk and a mini in my car. You can use the wand without opening the top, and they really don’t spill. I’ve turned mine upside-down without incident!

So, enjoy your bubbles. And remember -- they’re not just for playtime anymore.

Profitable Parenthood?

Have you heard about this? There’s a new program starting up in New York City that will pay parents for … well … parenting.

Targeting poor families, the program offers cash rewards for fulfilling parental responsibilities. Taking your kid to the dentist earns you 100 bucks; getting them a library card is worth 50 bucks; attending a parent-teacher conference puts 25 bucks in your pocket.

The pilot program is privately funded and is looking to enroll about 13,000 low income families. It is based on anti-poverty experiments that have been conducted in developing countries using a concept called “Conditional Cash Transfers” – the conditions usually tied to behaviors intended to reduce poverty. In the New York experiment, it is strongly focused on educational goals for children, paying parents for responsible behaviors that foster a child’s education.

I’m not 100% certain what I think of this program yet. Certainly, if the funds are private dollars, experiment away, I guess. Of course, the likelihood that this will evolve to a publicly funded program encourages me to look at it a bit more closely. And, when I do, a few warning flags go up.

No doubt the intention is good, but regular readers of this blog are aware that my advocacy for or against things is based not only on intention, but also on consequences – particularly unintended consequences. I think this project is fertile ground for the unintended.

In my Online Library is an article called Carrot Pro’s and Con’s. You can begin there to see some of my concerns with incentives in general. But beyond the pitfalls of incentives, think about the premise of this program. We are basically financially rewarding parents for neglectful parenting. We could end up seeing parents in one part of our nation criminally charged for being neglectful, while parents in New York qualify for cash transfers for the same behavior. It is even possible that being eligible for such transfers creates incentives for having children for parents who should not be having children – making the condition of children in poverty worse rather than better.

And how will this affect the dynamics between parent and child? Certainly I’d support anything that increases the likelihood that a parent will begin to take an active interest in their child’s education and provide the support, guidance, and attention necessary to encourage the child to become more engaged. But does putting a financial incentive accomplish that, or does it simply add more friction between parent and child? A parent who is being neglectful is unlikely to turn loving when cash is involved. A possibility is that the child will be seen now as a cash machine, and ‘encouragement’ from the parent will more closely resemble coercion.

A practical concern is how would such a program be monitored? 13,000 families receiving nickel and dime cash transfers for sporadic events are a logistics nightmare in terms of accountability. Unless an army of case workers is hired to monitor each family and verify the veracity of their activities, you can expect massive fraud resulting in cash transfers with no corresponding benefit to the children.

Granted, I have listed here only the possible pitfalls, but that last pitfall is a big one. I’m not sure we can even verify if the program is working. And if it doesn’t work, it won’t be a benign effort – it may actually make conditions worse.

Language - Part 2

Street Kids, street youth, homeless youth -- does it really matter what label we use? Yes, it not only matters -- it governs our response. Language is a reflection of how we think about things, and our thoughts govern our actions. Are the young people in your program manipulative or resourceful, aggressive or assertive, resistant or independent? The language you use to describe their behavior will directly impact how you think about and provide service.

Whenever common language is agreed upon, we should identify the possible ramifications of that language and be willing to live with them. As a field, I don’t believe we’ve ever really thought about the effects of labeling the population as ‘homeless’ youth. If we ever did that exercise, we might not like the consequences of our choice. While there may be more, what follows are the Big 3 in my mind.

1) Self-screening effects

Bottom line, many of the young people who could benefit from RHY programs simply do not self-identify as homeless. This is particularly true in minority communities, but is also the case with some young people who are ‘couch-surfing’ or living out of motels or some other form of ‘housing’. It is also the case with young people who connect the label ‘homeless’ with adult homeless populations and don’t see themselves as being the ‘skid row’ type. Whatever the reason for their rejection of the label, a program identity that reduces a young person’s willingness to engage is violating the first law of outreach. Our choice to identify as a ‘homeless’ service may be cutting off access for some of the young people who need us.

2) Impact on services

We provide services to meet needs. How we view those needs directly impacts how we provide services. If youth are homeless, the solution is to get them a home -- thus the heavy focus on ‘roof-based’ services within the RHY field. I’m not saying that shelter/housing is a bad thing, or even an unnecessary thing. I’m only saying that it’s probably not the most important thing in terms of transitioning young people off of the streets. It is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Anyone who has ever been involved in RHY housing services should be able to tell you that simply putting young people in a place where there is a roof over their head does not mean that they are now ‘off of the streets’. That condition takes place as a result of conceptual and developmental changes, not changes in address.

Yet we are often so focused on the provision of housing that we fail to provide the housing in a manner that promotes conceptual and developmental changes. Instead, we see young people bombing out of our housing services, and we blame them. We see young people who refuse to enter our housing services in the first place, and we blame them. What we never seem to blame is the fact that we are approaching complex psycho-emotional issues of young people struggling to find their place in our world as simple economic issues of homelessness -- driven to a large degree by the language we use.

3) Blowback on young people

‘Blowback’ is a term that recognizes that for every action there is a reaction. It refers to unintended consequences resulting from intended actions. Labeling youth as ‘homeless’ was an intentional choice that made it made it easier to seek funding by joining existing funding efforts targeting ‘homeless’ populations. It also made it easier to bring young people out of the shadows at a time when talking about issues such as sexual abuse, prostitution, drugs, and other ‘taboo’ topics was … well … taboo. But that choice was not without some blowback, and points 1 & 2 above could be considered part of that blowback. A more concerning part, however, can be seen in the public’s reaction to ‘homeless’ youth when the young people fail to live up to the public’s image of ‘homelessness’.

Let’s face it; a homeless youth is cute. They are a sad child in need of love and a warm hearth and meal. They need a place to clean their innocent, dirty faces, and to be safe from the cruel world that has left them without a pillow to rest their head on at night. That’s the sub-conscious image conjured up when we speak of homeless youth to an uninformed public.

Then they see the young people our programs are serving. Foul-mouthed, armed, drug affected little criminals who are shoving all of society’s foibles and failures right back in its face. Hey! Where’s that cute little homeless kid you’ve been telling us about? This kid scares me. He/she’s a danger to our community. This is a law enforcement issue, not a social service issue. Let’s get those kids somewhere where we don’t have to see them!

And, once again, we blame the youth -- not because of who they are, but because they are not who we want them to be, driven in part by the language we’ve used to represent them. The further they fall from the public’s image of ‘homelessness’ (and, by the way, the more in need of our services they are), the less likely there will be public support for appropriate services to meet their needs.

Conclusion:

I’m not saying that we can fix all the problems with serving RHY populations by simply renaming them -- and I’m not altogether sure what would be a better label -- but I am saying that there are concerns with the ‘homeless’ label that are not being discussed or addressed within the field as far as I can tell. Opening the discussion would seem to be a good first step.

Language - Part 1

The odd thing about American culture is how often we miss the point. An example can be seen in our language regarding runaway and homeless youth.

I use the term ‘runaway and homeless youth’ because that is the accepted terminology for young people who spend some or all of their time disconnected from adult supports and interacting with an alternative ‘street’ culture. Federal programs for this population are referred to in short hand as ‘RHY’ programs. The problem, however, is that with this population we are not dealing with an issue of homelessness.

I’ve made this point before (see Monday, April 16, 2007; Homeless Youth Summit - Part One); the streets aren’t under your feet, they’re under your scalp. Sure, many youth acculturated to the streets spend some or all of their time without a home. However, having a place to live (an apartment, flop, shelter, motel room, being ‘housed’ by someone) does not necessarily mean that you are ‘off the streets’. And the issues of mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, and economics are unlikely to be the primary reason why you are ‘on the streets’ -- though these are the issues that characterize other homeless populations. Labeling youth as ‘homeless’ often alienates youth we may be trying to reach, as many may not self-identify as ‘homeless’ and will screen themselves out of our services, and the services themselves may be less effective with a focus on a problem that is not the real issue.

But, as I said, I’ve talked about this before. However, I can’t remind myself of it often enough, as the ‘culture’ of services for street-acculturated youth is so heavily dominated by the language of and focus on homelessness. That was something I noticed today when I was scanning news articles related to the population.

I searched 3 terms; street kids, street youth, and homeless youth. Based on the first 10 articles to come up related to each of these terms, I noticed that with street kids and street youth - terms that speak more to the culture than an issue of ‘homelessness’ - 70% of the articles were from Canada, the United Kingdom, and (of all places) Fiji - only 30% originated in the United States. But when the search term changed to homeless youth, 90% of the articles originated in the USA.

There seems to be a difference in the language that we use here in the United States. Tomorrow I’ll talk a bit more about some potential ramifications of this language.

Careful What You Teach

She’s suspended, missing her graduation, and she’s getting a lot of flak. Personally, I see her as someone willing to put herself on the line for her convictions. If only we had more people like her in this world.

I’m talking about Savannah Larson, a 13-year-old 8th grader at Monticello Middle School in Longview, Washington. After she sang at an end-of-year concert (the audience of which included students, teachers, and parents) she ended by thanking her choir teacher Connie Noakes for everything she had taught her. She then went into a rant of obscenities and profane language -- shocking and offending just about everyone in the audience, and resulting in her suspension, her inability to attend her graduation, and the above mentioned flak.

If you are unfamiliar with this case you may wonder why I’m painting a foul-mouth teenager who publicly offended people as a hero of sorts, so some background information is required. According to Ms. Larson, her choir teacher, Ms. Noakes, routinely uses abusive language in her classroom. Every word Ms. Larson spewed at the concert was a repeat of the words Ms. Noakes spewed at the students. Ms. Larson had tried other routes. She and her mother had complained “several times” to the school administration, but nothing was ever done. Now Ms. Larson was graduating. She could have just let it go, and allowed the next group of 8th graders to put up with the choir teacher’s unique communication style. Or she could do something about it. She could demonstrate in public what the students experience in private -- risking suspension, missing her own graduation, and public ridicule in the process. She, in my opinion bravely and honorably, chose the latter.

One wonders why behavior that is apparently OK in the classroom is not OK at a public concert. Never-the-less, something is being done now. An investigation is finally underway -- an investigation that would not be underway if it wasn’t for Savannah Larson.

Update on Genarlow Wilson

In my entry titled “A True Travesty” on March 29, 2007, I related the case of Genarlow Wilson, a 17 year old high school senior serving a 10 year prison sentence for consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend and classmate. Now 21, Mr. Wison has been in prison for the past 28 months. However, there has been some recent good news … sort of.

A judge has voided his sentence, but it is not yet time to celebrate. He remains in jail pending an appeal by the Georgia State Attorney General.

Attorney General Thurbert Baker argues that the 10 year sentence is valid, that the judge has no authority to reduce or modify a sentence imposed by trail court, and that there is a plea deal on the table that would reduce the sentence to 5 years and remove Mr. Wilson from the sex offender roles.

The judge who threw out Mr. Wilson's ten-year sentence amended the charges to misdemeanor aggravated child molestation with a 12-month term, plus credit for time served, and no registration as a sex offender. Even this charge and sentence sounds harsh for consensual sex between a 17 year old and a 15 year old, but at least it would get Mr. Wilson out of prison and off of the sex offender registries. All that stands between Mr. Wilson and freedom at this point is the Georgia State Attorney General.

NOTE: Tomorrow I am out of town attending a service learning training, so there will be no Thursday blog entry. I’ll be back online on Friday!

Thirsty?

13 year old Middle School student Kyleray Katherman attends the Oregon Coast Technology School located at the North Bend Middle School in North Bend, Oregon. It seems that the school had a problem with students sneaking Vodka into the school in water bottles. So, how does the school respond? I’ve talked about this before -- they responded with the standard knee jerk adult response to youth issues: ban something.

In this case they banned water bottles. Young people drinking alcohol in school? Easy solution: ban water bottles -- problem solved.

Except that I seriously doubt that the problem is really solved, or even addressed. However, an entirely new problem has been discovered.

In an assignment for an English class, of all things, Mr. Katherman decided to conduct water tests within the school. He tested 5 water sources; 4 drinking fountains and 1 toilet. As his tests revealed, if students want to drink clean water at Mr. Katherman’s school, their best bet is to drink out of the toilet.

(I love this part) Mr. Katherman presented his findings to the School Board with a PowerPoint Presentation, and recommended that they either lift the ban on water bottles (my note: and maybe address the real problem?) or install water coolers.

Some plumbing has been replaced at the drinking fountains, and all were given a thorough cleaning by custodians. Some teachers are also providing water in their classrooms -- but so far there are no water coolers and the ban on bottled water remains in place.

A Question of Sensitivity

Here’s a question that came up at one of my “Communicating with Young People” presentations:

Question:

“What’s the best way to approach sensitive issues, such as sexual abuse or rape?”

My response:

This has always been a difficult aspect of working with young people, particularly for those who are new to the field. It can be an extremely uncomfortable experience to sit with an adolescent -- perhaps as young as 12 or 13 -- and discuss very grown-up issues such as sexual abuse, prostitution, or rape, or even less weighty but equally sensitive issues such as hygiene. It is a natural instinct to want to soften the issue by speaking indirectly, or peppering the conversation with kind euphemisms. The reality, however, is that doing so is really an act of protecting ourselves, not the young person we are working with.

You should always remember why you are having the conversation in the first place. The reason is that the sensitive issue you are discussing is a part of the young person’s experience. It may be unfortunate that they have had such experiences, but -- bottom line -- they have. When we talk to them about these issues we are not discussing some abstract concept, we are discussing their lives. By speaking indirectly or using euphemisms, we end up communicating two messages that we may not intend.

The first message is that what has happened to them is so horrible that we can’t even discuss it. The likely result is that we leave them feeling tainted, damaged, and shamed. That’s not our intention; we want to make things better. But these issues are now a part of them. If we can’t even talk about it, what does that say about them?

The second message has to do with what it says about us. When we demonstrate that we can’t even say the words, we inadvertently communicate that we can’t handle the reality of their lives. Young people will quickly pick up on this, and begin to ‘protect’ us by not sharing the parts of their lives that we’ve shown an inability to deal with. Instead of becoming a resource and support, we slowly become a burden -- someone who they need to take care of by being careful about what they will share.

Sometimes our response adds anger to the list of emotions that they are dealing with. We once had a streetwork team dealing with a recent rape victim. The team accompanied her to the hospital and waited with her for a rape advocate to arrive. The whole time they were with her, one of the workers kept euphemistically referring to the rape as ‘the incident’ -- were you injured during the incident, did anyone witness the incident? Finally, the young women lashed out in anger, shouting – “Dammit! I didn’t have ‘an incident.’ I was raped!”

I am not suggesting that you callously use the most graphic terminology available to you. I am suggesting, however, that you confront these issues in a direct, straightforward manner. Remember that you’re not talking about anything that they haven’t lived. If you communicate that you can’t even say the words, you are unlikely to be seen as someone who can help.

For related information, read the article “Tough Talk” in my Online Library (link above).

No Comment

Yep, no comment today, tomorrow, or Friday. I’m on my way to present Youth Development: A Winning Hand in Auburn, Washington – so the blogging must give way to facilitating (and travel) the rest of this week. Look for more Youth Advocate Online on Monday, June 11th.

The Scorpion in Foster Care

“Youth exiting the foster care system face one of the highest rates of homelessness, with more than half of street youth flowing from the foster care system.”

This isn’t news, I’ve talked about this before. I’ve pointed out that the United States foster care system is the source of around 40% of the youth we see on the streets, according to the studies I’ve looked at. Of course, what’s different in this quote is the percentage. Instead of 40%, this quote claims that more than half of street youth originate in the foster care system. Why the difference? Maybe it's because I’m talking about a different country.

This quote is from a Canadian paper discussing homeless issues in Vancouver, British Columbia. I haven’t read the documentation to see if the percentage is accurate, so I can’t confirm that an even greater number of foster care youth end up homeless in Canada. It really doesn’t matter, though. If the figure is at all accurate, then the conclusion has to be that there are serious problems with foster care in both nations.

I could list the visible problems with foster care in either nation, but I’m more of a “disease” kind of guy. Okay, that sounds creepy, but what I’m trying to say is that we far too often focus on symptoms, and then we are left scratching our heads wondering why nothing changes. The insufficient reimbursement, the poor screening (a recent study in California found that only 47% of caregivers were properly assessed), the lack of adequate training, support, and oversight – these are all symptoms, and I fear that even if we were to wave a magic wand and fix all of these symptoms (though I don’t advise holding your breath on that one), we’d simply discover new symptoms and still have foster care failing for a large percentage of young people.

So, what’s the disease? I don’t know, but I have a theory. It came to me when I was thinking about that old fable of the scorpion and the turtle. In case you haven’t heard it, the story goes that a scorpion asked a turtle if he could ride on the turtle's back to get across a pond. The turtle said; “No. You’re a scorpion. You’ll sting me and I’ll die.” The scorpion replied; “If I do that, I’ll drown, so you don’t have to worry that I’ll sting you.” That made sense to the turtle, so he let the scorpion onto his back and proceeded to cross the pond.

About halfway across, the scorpion stung the turtle. Shocked, and with his dying breath, the turtle asked; “Why would you do such a thing? Now we’re both going to die!” The scorpion’s last words as he sank into the water were; “I couldn’t help it … I’m a scorpion.”

I’m not calling the foster care system a scorpion. I’m just pointing out that things can only be their nature. The nature of the foster care system – the entire concept upon which the system is based – is temporary care for young people. By its nature, foster care is instability and inconsistency – the two things that are absolutely guaranteed to work against a young person’s healthy development.

Explore any facet of child welfare systems and you will quickly learn that the over-riding mandate is safety. I am not advocating against safety, I am only saying that if safety results in a lack of stability and consistency, we really aren’t making a young person safe – we are simply delaying the risks.

Don't Act, Take Action

Surfing around the web looking for articles related to youth homelessness, I came across an account of a group of students who spent 8 hours on the streets pretending to be homeless. Titled Nowhere to Go: Students talk about night of homelessness, the article detailed how the experience was (in the words of one) “the worst 8 hours of my life” and how another “broke down and cried”.

This is not the first time I’ve heard of things like this. Periodically, groups of young people in Portland do the same thing. When I ran programs, I would sometimes receive requests from such groups for permission to ‘experience’ drop in or shelter services (requests that I always denied).

I have such mixed emotions in response to these groups. On the one hand I admire the passion and intention, but I can’t help feeling that it’s misguided. Youth on the streets need assistance; they don’t need more youth on the streets pretending to be them. And, while I understand the goal is to give the participants greater understanding, I think it’s a goal that is both unachievable and unnecessary. It’s unachievable because it is impossible to duplicate the socio-economic condition. Every young person pretending to be homeless knows that they are not. This will end in a few hours, and they go back to the safety and security of their homes. That reality makes it impossible for them to truly experience homelessness, as the true impact of homelessness is not about where you are, it’s about the options you don’t have. And then there’s the psycho-emotional component that is also impossible to duplicate. Unless you can find a way to put them on the streets within a context of abuse, neglect and adult betrayal, they won’t really understand anyway.

Besides, as I said, the whole thing is unnecessary. Does someone really need to pretend to be homeless for a few hours to grasp the concept that being homeless sucks? I have been fortunate in my life to never have lived in a war zone like the people of Iraq are currently experiencing. Yet I can honestly say that I don’t feel a need to live in Baghdad for 8 hours to understand that they are suffering, need help, and that I would not wish to live that way.

Youth who are truly homeless and surviving on the streets have so many needs that I can’t help thinking the world would be better if these compassionate young people had used their 8 hours helping, rather than imitating.

LGBTQ Resource

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. An advocate for runaway and homeless youth has to be an advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth. To ignore that segment of the population is to ignore up to 40% of the young people you meet on the streets. That’s why I was so pleased to come across a new resource available through the National Runaway Switchboard.

“Being Out, Being Safe" is a new brochure designed to explain the realities facing LGBTQ teens, offer tips for youth and adults on how to become an ally of LGBTQ youth, point to resources where LGBTQ teens can find additional services and support, and present related statistics. You can view the brochure here:

http://www.1800runaway.org/pub_mat/documents/LGBTQ.pdf