Understanding organizations for runaway and homeless youth: A multi-setting quantitative study of their characteristics and effects

Runaway and homeless youth (RHY) are served by specialized settings (e.g., Drop-In Centers, Transitional Living Programs, and multi-program settings), but little is known about the characteristics of these organizations or their effects on RHY’s behavioral and psychosocial outcomes. To address this gap we studied 29 randomly selected diverse settings across New York State, including those in rural, suburban, and urban areas. Within settings, we used the Youth Program Quality Assessment model to observe and rate programs for RHY (N = 53), assess program administrators (N = 30), and conduct anonymous structured assessment batteries with RHY aged 16-21 years (N = 463). We found settings overall evidenced satisfactory-to-high quality on a multi-perspective setting quality score. With respect to RHY’s behavioral outcomes, engagement in school/job training/work was high (81 %), substance use was moderate (mean use: 17 of the past 90 days), and 37 % evidenced involvement in the street economy (e.g., drug dealing, burglary). RHY in Transitional Living Programs and multi-program settings had more engagement in school/job training/work and less involvement in the street economy than their peers in Drop-In Centers. The quality of settings was not associated with these three behavioral outcomes (school/training/work, substance use, street economy), likely due to issues of restricted range. However, higher setting quality was associated with four constructive psychosocial outcomes; namely, RHY’s perceptions that settings foster positive outcomes in these three domains, and perceived resilience. Thus the present study highlights settings’ overall good quality, with some variability, and provides guidance on strategies to assess setting quality. Consistent with the existing literature, RHY in Drop-In Centers are highly vulnerable and may require additional types of services/programs to achieve their potential. Further, while the present study suggests all settings benefit RHY, better quality settings may be able to move beyond meeting RHY’s basic requirements and address higher order relational, psychosocial, and motivational needs. Importantly, fostering a sense of resilience among RHY, as well as young people’s experiences of settings as helpful to them in achieving good behavioral outcomes, may have long-term beneficial effects on RHY’s engagement in other settings, relationships, adaptation, and functioning.