Background

On April 7th, 2005 a meeting was held consisting of key stakeholders in the rural, border community of Fort Erie Ontario concerned with the issue of youth homelessness. At issue was the imminent closure of the Holy Family Boys Home and the resultant availability of residual funding from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. A number of key stakeholders had expressed interest in using these funds to address the needs of youth who are defined as homeless or precariously housed within the community of Fort Erie. However, there was no clear data available as to the scope of youth homelessness or a clear consensus as to what services might best suit this population. In order to increase local knowledge of this population, we were invited to review the current literature on rural homeless youth, discuss relevant issues with a variety of stake-holders and endeavor to talk with youth, ultimately generating the preliminary research and recommendations presented here.

Youth Who Are Homeless: Geographies of Homelessness and Invisibility

The majority of the literature on homelessness conceptualizes it as an urban problem (Beer et al. 2003; Jannazzo and Marquis 2002) and a wide body of research exists that provides estimates of metropolitan street youth and qualitatively describes their experiences (Van Leeuwen et al. 2004; Novac et al. 2002; Whitbeck and Hoyt 1999; McCarthy 1995). Similar descriptions and population estimates are virtually absent for youth who experience rural homelessness (Jannazzo and Marquis 2002), despite the number of urban homeless youth with rural origins (Collins 2006; Thrane et al. 2006; Farrin et al. 2005). Indeed, although some metropolitan literature does remark on rural youth homelessness, it comments only on its invisible nature (NIDA 2005). This exclusion has significant implications in that it marginalizes the rural homeless and hinders the development of social policy to address the issues this population faces. Centrepoint suggests that for youth “the experience of running away may be very different in rural areas from that experienced in urban areas” (2001, p. 1).

Voakes (1992) estimates that rural youth homelessness can be estimated at 3 per 1000 in overall population, although as Lawrence (1995) points out in his study of rural homelessness in Iowa, homeless populations can vary quite substantially between rural areas, depending on demographic shifts, economic distress and local transformations in patterns of labour. Surprisingly, in a 2002 high school questionnaire on youth homelessness in Lanark, Ontario, “nearly 1/3 of the youths surveyed had left home at least once” (Collins 2006). The purpose of this literature review is to take an active role by highlighting how practical preventions and interventions can occur to reduce such homelessness for rural and semi-rural young people. In this report, we first define rural homelessness as it relates to youth, with youth in this context fluidly operationalized as those ranging in age from twelve years to early twenties. Vissing (1999) optimistically suggests that if metropolitan intervention models are critically read, they can become rurally applicable. This review thus details the research of Beer et al. (2003) and the intervention categories they examine to alleviate homelessness in metropolitan and, potentially, non-metropolitan regions. This comprehensive report on rural youth homelessness in Australia, Beer et al. (2003) examines service delivery options for homeless youth that are divided by primary, secondary or tertiary intervention strategies, each of which can be considered in terms of rural application. Finally, we present findings and consequent recommendations from our own data collection undertaken in Fort Erie.

A final consideration is that although various rural programs exist, they are rarely explored in research and intervention literatures. During the collection of research for this review, we corresponded with several youth-workers in Canada and the United States via telephone and email. In these conversations we inquired as to whether they had knowledge of recent intervention-based literature. The majority of these youth workers stated that the literature on rural programming was, to their knowledge, scarce or non-existent; these statements suggest that most practical work with homeless youth (rural or urban) is largely unguided by relevant research literature. This gap in research subsequently influences the course of service delivery. For example, the lack of literature in the area of rural programming has made rural programs largely dependent upon literature pertaining to urban settings when trying to make decisions about program design. As a result when rural programs design services, they either have to hope that urban models will translate to their setting or go through the process of attempting to tailor interventions without any research to guide their efforts. In addition, the lack of access to other service providers with similar experience writing in the field can increase a sense of professional isolation and diminish the collegiality so useful when working with young people in challenging circumstances. Finally, the absence of literature adds to the perceived invisibility of rural homeless youth in a way that minimizes the problems and challenges of this population.

What is Rural Homelessness and Where Do Youth Fit?

The popular and urban depictions of homelessness present poor housing or street sleeping (Beer et al. 2003; Shifflett 2004). As previously noted, “rural homelessness is often neglected as it is invisible to the general population and is not consistent with the rural idyll” (Beer et al. 2003, p. 5). Such conceptions of homelessness alongside idealization of the countryside make it difficult to conceive of homelessness rurally and as such, homelessness is often denied by communities (Collins 2006). Such images also reflect quite a narrow definition of homelessness. As Farrin et al. (2005) discuss, a broader definition of homelessness is needed, particularly in rural areas, one which includes the hidden homeless who are staying with friends, in danger of immediate eviction and/or living without safety or security.

In rural regions, the opportunities to secure safe and appropriate housing are limited due to lower incomes, higher unemployment rates and fewer job opportunities (Beer et al. 2003; Vissing 1999). Additionally, Beer et al. (2003) cite several studies which state that rural communities often have limited available housing to begin with, particularly rental stock. These factors are especially problematic for youth who are homeless or seeking independence from previous living arrangements. The Lanark Transitions Committee (2003) found that young people also experience significant age discrimination in the housing market, with many landlords unwilling to rent to them. Also, Farrin et al. (2005) argue that fewer resources and services are available in rural and semi-rural settings; the services that are there tend to be under-resourced, run centrally and difficult to access (e.g. due to transportation issues).

Fewer community and informational resources, higher unemployment rates for young people, and a lack of housing in rural areas restrict youth’s ability to secure safe and affordable housing and may force them into homelessness (Jannazzo and Marquis 2002). When this occurs, rural youth “are faced with the alternatives of sleeping rough, couch surfing, returning to unacceptable circumstances in their parental home or previous living arrangement, or being forced to leave the region” (Beer et al. 2003, p. 25). Homeless youth might also rent motel rooms with other young people, camp in public areas, or inhabit abandoned barns (Jannazzo and Marquis 2002; Vissing 1999). In addition, the socioeconomic conditions of rural areas typically restrict the efforts of youth who are transitioning out of homelessness, which might result in extended stays in shelters or temporary housing (Beer et al. 2003).

Although migration to urban centres is an option which some youth take (Thrane et al. 2006), this tactic is not ideal. Beer et al. (2003), argue that this solution ignores the strong ties and sense of community that many youth feel toward their home region, alongside their lack of such social networks within cities. Additionally, the limited social resources in rural communities do not provide youth with information to assist a transition from rural to urban settings. Seasonal and tourist-based jobs in rural communities may be appealing for homeless youth in comparison to the high-skill labour demand in metropolitan areas; thus, homeless youth might be discouraged from moving to urban areas (Jannazzo and Marquis 2002). Also, if they do migrate, once there, rural youth may have difficulty competing in a restricted urban labour market because “rural regions [typically] have lower levels of educational attainment” (Beer et al. 2003, p. 26). Travel expenses into urban areas are, undoubtedly, also relevant to consider. Finally, urban centres often also have limited services and shortages of affordable housing options (Transitions Committee 2003).

One survey of rural and smaller-town youth has been conducted recently in Ontario by the Transitions Committee in Lanark County (2003). Young people who had experience with homelessness themselves conducted 99 in-depth interviews with youth who were experiencing or had experienced homelessness. In this study, over half the respondents reported diverse (i.e. non-nuclear) family structures and, notably, many had lost a parent through either death or abandonment. Similar to findings on urban homeless youth (Thrane et al. 2006; Tyler et al. 2001), the Transitions Committee found that many youth left home due to conflict with family, abuse and substance abuse (either their parents’ or their own).Footnote 1 This was also quite a transient group. Most received financial support from parents, odd jobs, friends, social assistance, panhandling and relatives. Fewer were involved in criminal activities compared to homeless youth in urban areas, a finding which conflicts with Thrane et al.’s (2006) research which suggests that younger rural teenagers are more likely to resort to “deviant subsistence strategies” due to lack of social supports and skills at accessing services. Among the youth studied by the Transitions Committee, homelessness had a direct effect on school attendance and performance and nearly half had, at some point, contemplated suicide. Transportation was also a significant issue, with many relying on hitchhiking at some point in time. Respondents stated that their inability to get and keep housing was most significantly linked to the following issues: lack of money (74%), age discrimination in the housing market (50%), lack of affordable housing (42%), unemployment (25%), drug abuse (24%), anger management (22%) and a series of other, less frequent issues such as depression and conflict with the law.

The Transitions Committee also asked about the services youth sought and used. Respondents were most likely to use youth centres. Twenty-six percent of respondents visited youth shelters regularly. 16% used school guidance counsellors. Remaining possibilities were all used by under 10% of the youth and these included: private counsellors, social workers, welfare workers, the Children’s Aid Society, emergency shelter and police. Many were quite frustrated with their inability to access Ontario Works (social assistance) due to lack of transportation, appointments during school hours, and the eligibility requirements (needing a trustee who is over 18, needing to be in school, and needing a permanent address). Once accessed, they discussed the impossibility of living on the allotted $520 a month. In terms of assistance, a large majority (84.4%) said that they would use a 24-h help-line that would provide support and advice on a range of housing issues. Many also recommended transitional housing, with services including counselling, life skills training, internet access and résumé help. Other recommendations by the Transitions Committee included: local solutions, employment of experienced community workers, involvement of existing local agencies, and skill-based programming for these youth.

Service Delivery

In their comprehensive report on rural youth homelessness in Australia, Beer et al. (2003) provide program categories for homeless youth that are divided by primary, secondary or tertiary intervention strategies, each of which can be considered in terms of rural application. Primary interventions address homelessness before it occurs by offering youth supports so they will not become at-risk (Beer et al. 2003). Secondary programming targets youth who are at high risk for homelessness and provides support through counselling or referral to other community agencies (Beer et al. 2003). These supports are largely effective in the school setting and through the development of peer support networks (Beer et al. 2003; Caputo et al. 1996). Tertiary supports involve interventions when homelessness has actually occurred. The goal of this type of intervention is outcome-oriented; that is, these programs assist homeless youth in their transition to securing safe and independent accommodation (Beer et al. 2003).

Outreach Models

Outreach models address youth homelessness at a structural level by providing primary and secondary intervention services (Beer et al. 2003). In doing so, these models seek to identify potentially “at risk” youth before they are forced to the street without shelter or a stable home environment. Centrepoint (2001) asserts that education about routes to homelessness and their avoidance needs to be made available to youth. This can be accomplished by a variety of means. First and most fundamentally, information needs to be distributed to all agencies or programs that are likely to encounter youth who are at risk. These organizations should be provided with a clear and direct referral process so that youth receive preventative support or early intervention (Vissing 1999; Centrepoint 2001). Distributing referral information to public helplines, school guidance counsellors, churches, youth recreational services, or members of the community that are known to be in consistent contact with youth populations increases support networks and decreases isolation that some youth might experience. Additionally, making this information available to family counsellors is quite significant. Centrepoint (2001) argues that these counsellors should assert that youth are free agents, and have rights and precedence for personal safety that is above and beyond their family. Yet they should also encourage youth to maintain contact with their families while offering them the assurance of confidentiality should they decide to leave home. If youth decide to stay at home, outreach services should still continue so that they retain access to a neutral and mediating resource.

In a report issued by Health Canada on peer initiatives to assist out-of-mainstream youth, Caputo, et al. (1996) outline the importance of peer education-based prevention. Peer helper initiatives provide youth with information in a safe and encouraging environment of peer counselling, mediation, referral, tutoring, advocacy and protection (Caputo et al. 1996). Schools are ideal settings for peer helpers and outreach workers to provide primary and secondary intervention services. For example, schools might ask former or transitioning street youth to come to the school to deliver “speaks” (Caputo et al. 1996). Speaks are informal meetings where these youth share their own experiences with students in hopes that this will prevent youth from entering homelessness. Another important component of outreach service delivery is its emphasis on providing youth with community resources. When community support services, businesses and government initiatives are bridged and accessible, young people and their families are supported in a more comprehensive manner (Beer et al. 2003).

As cited by Beer et al. (2003), successful outreach programs have intervention that is preventative (not remedial), flexible, with the capacity to respond in a crisis situation, on-going, and able to provide youth with money in cases of emergency. For rural youth, such models include some specific challenges, however, due to a lack of supportive community resources and local infrastructure (Victorian Homelessness Strategy (VHS), 2000 as cited by Beer et al. 2003; Baker 2004), the trend of regionalization, where services for rural communities are provided within urban regional centres (Beer et al. 2003) and the trend of centralization, where services for rural communities are run centrally. Services coordinated in the city may not account for rural issues as “Decision making that is not locally driven often fails to meet local needs” (VHS, 2000, p. 1 as cited by Beer et al. 2003).

Intensive Support Models

Intensive models are secondary in nature and support those youth who demonstrate the greatest need, particularly those with psychosocial difficulties (Beer et al. 2003), these models thus concentrate on those considered to be at high risk. In the context of youth homelessness, the literature (for detailed literature, see Van Leeuwen et al. 2004) suggests a cyclical relationship between psychosocial problems and homelessness; that is, those youth who display psychosocial difficulties often become homeless, and alternatively, those homeless youth without these difficulties are often exposed to situations that increase the likelihood of psychosocial maladjustment. Generally, being homeless increases the likelihood of substance abuse, sexual exploitation and prostitution, mental health difficulties, poor physical health, socially disruptive behaviour, and social isolation (Beer et al. 2003; Vissing 1999; Van Leeuwen et al. 2004).

Intensive models accommodate for a range of potential difficulties by being diverse in nature and by combining a variety of intervention supports, including: continued daily life/survival supports that provide youth with access to specialist services (for example, detoxification or mental health services); low youth-worker to youth ratios where the relationship between the two is reciprocal and prolonged; and ongoing support regardless of where the youth resides (for example, that support continues whether the young person is homeless, has present accommodation, has reunited with her or his family, or has been evicted). Such programs can supply flexible hours where support is available (Bisset et al. in Beer et al. 2003), intensive support opportunities. For youth in rural communities, such models are valuable, but also challenging due to limited funding for community mental health programs, including counselling and referral (Jannazzo and Marquis 2002), and the above mentioned trends towards regionalization and centralization.

Generic and Crisis Models

Generic models provide tertiary services to the general population (as opposed to targeted or at-risk groups) by providing intervention as the need arises (Beer et al. 2003). For youth in immediate crisis, this approach provides short-term accommodation with hopes of eventual youth independence and intermediate or long-term housing accommodations. Short-term accommodation is typically structured by a group-living environment for youth where (by best practice) accommodation is flexible (for example, housing is not communal but clustered with the capacity for individual accommodation); the youth-worker(s) provides flexible support; referral to outside services is available; and the number of youth with complex needs is limited (Bisset et al. 1999 as cited by Beer et al. 2003).

Centrepoint (2001) stresses “a need for a more flexible range of provision for youth runaways” (p. 3) and agrees that youth-workers must be adaptable and devoted while youth reside temporarily at the respective centre. This research particularly stresses that youth workers be patient and flexible when working in generic programs as youth may perceive such intervention as temporary.

One major disadvantage to generic models is their inability to effectively accommodate clients with problems deemed “complex”. Because generic settings typically have low youth-worker to client ratios and a communal-living atmosphere, adequate time and funding to address the complex needs of some youth may be diminished or become problematic in a communal atmosphere where psychosocial problems may lead to disruption (Beer et al. 2003; Cicada Place 2004).

Unfortunately, rural areas often lack such immediate generic interventions for youth (VHS 2000 as cited by Beer et al. 2003). Further, such models can be challenging rurally as staff are often isolated from peers and inadequately trained, resulting in high turnover rates and shortages (VHS 2000 as cited by Beer et al. 2003).

Crisis models, in contrast, address homeless youth when their needs are acute, unexpected, life threatening and complex (Beer et al. 2003). Totally reactive and therefore also tertiary in nature, these approaches offer immediate intervention but do not address homelessness at a structural level, unlike outreach and intensive support models. As indicated by the Victorian Homelessness Strategy Unit (2000), “these services cannot provide long term support, facilitate independence and/or minimize repeat service usage” (p. 9, as cited by Beer et al. 2003). Successful crisis models do, however, include crisis intervention that is available beyond business hours; wide-ranging services (for example, substance abuse counselling, needle and syringe exchange, legal aid, abuse or sexual assault counselling, and primary health care) (Caputo et al 1996); a “team approach”; accessibility to a variety of intensive support service(s); opportunities to participate in social aspects of the community; and flexible financial aid (Bisset et al. 1999 as cited by Beer et al. 2003).

Coordination Models (Continuum of Care)

Finally, coordination (or continuum of care) models provide tertiary intervention when homelessness actually occurs, but links it to the outreach and intensive support models described above. For youth wishing to exit homelessness, this approach offers accessible links to mainstream services and agencies so that they may obtain appropriate housing and, in addition, a variety of social supports that reduce the incidence of homelessness (Caputo et al. 1996; Beer et al. 2003). The success of such a model is based in its ability to link unrelated resources so that youth receive social, psychological, financial, medical and other relevant supports (Beer et al. 2003; Caputo et al. 1996). The overall goal is inclusive and one where the unique needs of each client are provided for by bridging services, thereby creating an individualized and comprehensive care system. For example, a continuum of care model focuses on providing educational opportunities, literacy training, life skills training, and assistance with finding employment (Caputo et al. 1996). In addition, Caputo, et al. (1996) state that coordinated interventions maintain close contact with the “street scene”. Recalling Vissing’s (1999) suggestion that metropolitan interventions can be applied rurally, it may be more challenging for rural youth workers to stay in touch with rural “street scenes”. However, by consistently speaking with homeless youth or rural outreach workers about their experiences with the culture, it is possible that youth workers can maintain such contact.

As cited by Beer et al. (2003), Bisset et al. explain that a successful coordination model ensures that care, as well as identification, assessment and referral, is provided to those individuals, or targeted at those groups, who demonstrate increased needs; that assessment for those within at-risk groups is comprehensive and appropriate; that negotiation occurs with both youth and broader social agencies so that regular youth participation in programs is achieved; that the youth-worker and young person regularly review the appropriateness of the services being employed; and that “structural advocacy” ensures that the services provided assist youth with realistic problems they may face.

Northwest Michigan, a rural region with a significant homeless youth population, has adopted such a coordination approach (Jazzanno and Marquis 2002). Asserted by Jazzanno and Marquis (2002) and Beer et al. (2003) as the most effective strategy for rural homeless youth, such an intervention can be complex and far-reaching:

Homeless youth in [our] rural, isolated, geographically dispersed seven county service area lack a comprehensive … [system] to assist them with becoming fully prepared for adulthood and engaged constructively in our communities … This group recommended that a shelter be developed for homeless youth and that an ongoing coalition be formed to continue to develop the system of services and supports. Over 25 agencies and organizations participate in this ongoing initiative … An additional initiative … has been in existence in five of the seven counties in our proposed service area … [and is] comprised of representatives from 48 federal, state and local agencies (Jannazzo and Marquis 2002, p. 2–3).

To summarize, the intervention models that have the greatest pertinence to programming for homeless rural youth fall into primary, secondary and tertiary levels of care. The primary care models comprise different forms of community outreach to young people before they become homeless, including educating their teachers, physicians, and counselors regarding precipitating factors that may lead to homelessness. At the secondary level services are geared towards assisting young people who are homeless or at high risk for homelessness. Services such as intensive support are aimed at helping young people with complex psycho-social situations attain the skills and support necessary to attain a stable living situation. Peer support models also seem to have promise in this area. Tertiary services are aimed at intervening in both immediate and long term crisis situations through providing various levels of housing, crisis counseling, food, and other basic needs. These include both generic crisis models which focus on a localized delivery system and coordinated models which attempt to bring together multiple service providers. It would our position that while coordinated models seem particularly appropriate in rural areas, rural programs need to undertake a strong needs assessment in their community in order to determine which of these models or what combination of these models would work best in their community, especially in a climate of indeterminate and limited funding.

Fort Erie Ontario: A Case Study

The impetus for the literature review stemmed from conditions and concerns brought forward by service providers in the rural community of Fort Erie Ontario (Community Roundtable Report 2005). Fort Erie is located in the extreme southeast tip of the Niagara Peninsula on the border with the United States. It has a population of approximately 28,000 people, with significant immigrant and aboriginal populations. The town has struggled with the effects of de-industrialization and increasing difficulties with ease of movement across the border that have affected both tourism and trade, contributing to unemployment and poverty in certain sectors within the community. Average earnings are significantly lower than the national and provincial averages with 13% of the population living in poverty. The community is comprised of a significant number of single parent homes with over 1320 lone parent households in 2001. These factors have led to an increasing number of youth who are living in unstable living situations. As mentioned above, this situation led the City of Fort Erie to request a study of the homeless youth population and recommendations for possible service delivery options. To this end we engaged two sets of data collection: 1) informal discussions with key service providers and key stakeholders and 2) interviews with homeless youth.

Service Provider and Key Stakeholder Interviews and Recommendations

Through a saturated snowball sampling method, we conducted informal interviews with seventeen service providers and key stakeholders from all sectors of service provision to young people in Fort Erie. We began our snowball sampling with the key stakeholders involved in the meeting with the city of Fort Erie on April 7th, 2005. These key stakeholders provided contacts for other stakeholders and service providers who would be relevant for our project. From these informants, we continued our snowball sample until we had interviewed all relevant stakeholders and service providers but one, who did not return our calls. Interviews were informal and conducted over the phone. Respondents were asked about 1) their perceptions of numbers of homeless youth in Ft. Erie, 2) causes of homelessness among Ft. Erie youth, 3) coping strategies, 4) existing programs serving this population and 5) recommendations for service provision to this population. This information was then collected and summarized by one of the authors of this paper.

A number of the service providers were directors of organizations that directly address youth, such as a youth centre run out of a local church, although many of these are only offered to those over 16. Please see Appendix A for a list of organizations represented through these interviews. Programs for youth that cite this age stipulation include a program for teenage mothers and two youth shelters in nearby cities. Further, these services generally target very specific populations of youth or are only minimally operated in Fort Erie. Other organizations represented here focus primarily on adults but also to some extent address the needs of youth: an Out of the Cold program, a Housing Help Centre, centres for refugees/newcomers, a Native Friendship Centre, Regional Community Services, the Niagara Homeless Initiative and a local athletics centre.Footnote 2

Numbers of Homeless Youth

The local youth centre generally services younger youth and those who are not homeless, yet has about 18–20 homeless youth who occasionally drop in. Many of these youth do not seem to be coming into contact with other services providers, such as the regionally funded Homeless Initiative Outreach Program. Some do present at the Housing Help Centre, however. At the Housing Help Centre, the following was found through intake interviews conducted between April 2004 and March 2005 (though many more drop in for information without staying for an intake interview)

  1. (1)

    16–18 year olds: 14, all homeless

  2. (2)

    19–24 year olds: 11, 8 homeless

While the shelter does not keep consistent statistics about where their youth come from, it was estimated that about twelve per year make their way to a shelter for homeless youth located in the larger community of St. Catharines about 30 min north. The shelter in Niagara Falls, another larger community about 20 min away from Fort Erie, received 175 youth in 2005.Footnote 3 Of those, 5% (9) were from Fort Erie and surrounding area, though it was recognized that some simply stay in Fort Erie and ‘couch-surf’. Projections suggest 8% in 2006. The coordinator for homeless programs in Fort Erie finds that they place a few youth per month from Fort Erie. These youth are placed in St. Catharines, Welland (another larger community about 30 min away) or Niagara Falls but many stay in Fort Erie to find their own solutions. The two Fort Erie shelters for refugees and immigrants see about 15–16 youth per year, for whom the adult refugee services are often inadequate. Yet some programs are seeing very few homeless youth. At Out of the Cold, a newer, volunteer-run, wintertime dinner and shelter offered a few times a week through the local Salvation Army and a local church only saw one youth in 2006. The reasons for this may be threefold: (1) youth do not identify themselves as homeless, (2) they do not know about these services; (3) the services are not pitched to the needs of youth and may even be considered dangerous to them.

Causes of Homelessness for Youth in Ft Erie

Perceived causes of precarious housing among youth were many and spanned individual, family and community. In terms of the community, several care providers mentioned the lack of either employment opportunities or appropriate housing in Fort Erie and the limited options available in terms of transportation. Many more issues were seen to arise through family dysfunction, however, including abuse, parental conflict or domestic violence, parents in new relationships or disinterested step-parents, parents with drug or other addictions, no room at home, youth being kicked out for breaking rules or for conflict, low income family, and parents with mental health issues. Problems that could be identified as more specific to the individual youth included addiction, trouble with the law, mental illness, post-traumatic stress (for newcomer youth) and teen parenting. One worker observed that Family and Children’s Services youth are often those who are in the most dire situations and are more likely to be ‘core’ rather than transitional homeless.

What They do to Cope

Service providers cite several strategies that youth in Fort Erie use to cope with their homelessness. There are a number of them who leave, going to surrounding cities including Niagara Falls, St. Catharines and Buffalo in order to access services not available in Fort Erie. For some of these, new challenges arise. For example, Fort Erie youth who end up at the youth shelter in Niagara Falls cannot continue their schooling in Fort Erie, schooling that is expected for Ontario Works eligibility. It is also more challenging for these youth to find housing in Fort Erie as the Fort Erie newspaper’s classifieds are not on-line and they do not get the paper at the shelter, plus it is hard to go back and forth to Fort Erie to search for accommodation. Many stay within Fort Erie, on friends’ couches or with the parents of their friends. Remaining young people will resort to other strategies. Several stories that emerged included: living in a car, trying to spend the night in a grocery store, and exchanging sex for accommodation.

Recommendations for Services by Key Stakeholders

Shelter and Transportation

Most workers we talked with argued in favour of a youth shelter, although it was also recognized that such a shelter would be difficult to run financially due to the small numbers in the population being serviced. There was general agreement that a youth-specific shelter was needed and that such a shelter should also serve as a portal for other services. It was argued that such a shelter should address a range of client needs in terms of a spectrum of housing (emergency to supportive transitional). Specific shelter service needs were identified for aboriginal youth and newcomer youth. As well as transportation within town, regular transportation back and forth between the youth shelter in Niagara Falls and Fort Erie would be very useful.

Other Services

There are a number of other related services currently available in Fort Erie and it was argued that information and referral to such services would be best accomplished through a shelter or other crisis service. Advertising for other services that currently exist, such as the suicide prevention program, was also seen to be needed. Other areas of need: on-going counselling for youth (including counselling addressing post-traumatic stress), school programs with independent living schools, a drop-in centre in the school with food, shower, counselling and street outreach, and services that are not contingent on zero-tolerance for drugs or touch.

Youth Interviews and Recommendations

In planning this research project it was our intention to ensure that youth voices received particular attention. It was our feeling that as the potential recipients of service, their voices should be given particular weight in our final recommendations. Unfortunately we ran into several hurdles in our attempts to interview homeless young people, limiting our data and the conclusions that may be drawn from them. As noted in the literature review, one significant obstacle to such research is the fact that rural youth are largely invisible. They do not constitute a visible street presence as in larger urban communities. In fact, the youth we did talk to stated that rural homeless youth in Fort Erie are most easily accessed through schools and community programs. As a result, while also doing street outreach, we focused significant energy on attempting to access youth through schools and community groups. Another challenge of conducting research in the area of youth homelessness is negotiating access to them, however. While school counselors informed us of many homeless youth they knew of in the school, restrictions placed on access by the school district’s Educational Research Committee prevented us from talking with them.

In spite of these difficulties we held interviews with four homeless youth ages 14–17 (all female) and fifteen non-homeless youth who reported familiarity with youth homelessness in Fort Erie. Some of these youth were contacted through service providers who provided focus groups in one high school and individual interviews at a local drop in center. In addition, we conducted on the street interviews with young people who identified as homeless. We met these young people by approaching youth on the street and asking if they knew of any young people we could talk to who were homeless. The following information is based on these interviews. We include this data recognizing that it is insufficient as a general portrait of homeless youth in Fort Erie. That said, it is our contention that the inclusion of youth voice, however limited in number, adds an important dimension to the voices of the adult service providers in the ways that they confirm many of the same issues and concerns, and in the way that they offer the detail and particularity of lived experience.

All interviews were conducted following the explanation of confidentiality to the youth involved inclusive of the signing of a consent form by each youth. With youth in high risk situations we were particularly sensitive to the possibility of reported abuse and the complexity of these kinds of issues in the interview situation. As a result we took care to explain our role as mandated reporters should they choose to disclose any kind of abuse. In the interviews we conducted, youth did share instances of physical and sexual abuse but the situations had already been reported and action had been taken. All the names of youth have been changed to protect their confidentiality. The questions asked were scripted around the categories of causes, coping, programs and recommendations but the interviews were open ended in form to allow youth to extrapolate into areas we had not considered. This proved to be an effective strategy as youth did open areas such as the difficulty of negotiating with social services for benefits that we had not considered.

Causes

In our interviews with young people we found that the most commonly reported reason for being homeless was parental conflict. This seemed to fall into two main categories: conflict with biological parent(s) and conflict with a step-parent or boyfriend. The former often involved issues of divorce, physical abuse in the home, drug or alcohol involvement by parent or other adult in the home, drug or alcohol use by youth, school truancy issues, stress related to unemployment, or conflict over rules in the home. For instance:

Jill age 17: Left home because of fighting with her mother. She stated that her mother was abusive and that she left to escape the abuse. She still talks with her mother and in fact now she is out of the home gets along better with her than before. She further reports that her mother would like her to come home but she doesn’t trust the situation.

Beth age 14: Left home because of significant conflict with her father who is a single parent. She reported that her father has been violent with her in the past and that she left home to escape being abused.

Jan age 15: Reports that she cannot live at home because of drug involvement on both her and her mother’s part. In addition she is a lesbian whose family cannot accept her sexuality.

The latter often had to do with the step-parent or boyfriend either being involved with drugs, not interested in having children in the home, being abusive or a combination of these factors. Notably, for one youth, homelessness was linked to an absence of parents:

Sue age 13: Is currently out of the home because she was arrested for truancy and was in jail. She reports that her father died six year ago and that her mother has left the area. She has been in and out of various living situations including group homes, foster homes and friend’s houses. She states that she has a bad temper and this causes problems in her living situation. Her truancy was caused because she was couch hopping and had lost her clothing. She had no access to clothing and so had to wear the same clothes over and over and became embarrassed and stopped going to school. When she got out of jail she had no stable living situation

Other reasons given to us by youth for homelessness included stealing, strict parents, being hit by parents, and always being home alone.

What They do to Cope

The stories told by youth are quite similar to those reported by the service providers. Many stay within Fort Erie, on friends’ couches or with the parents of their friends.

Jill age 17: Reports that she stays with friends and pays them money from a job she has obtained. She reports that she gets limited money from assistance that includes rent and $10 every two weeks. She complained about difficulty getting her drug card and stated this was very problematic as she has a heart condition. Jill says that is too hard to get a job, go to school, deal with kids in the house, care for two cats, and still have so many people to report to about her situation, such as her worker. She states she does not feel safe home alone and is very stressed out due to a history of losing jobs

Beth age 14: Reports moving between friends and selling drugs for food and clothing.

Jan age 15: Seeks shelter with friends and sells drugs for food and clothing.

Various others try to find other strategies, including exchanging sex for accommodation.

Sue age 13: Seeks shelter with an adult male “friend” with whom she has a sexual relationship. Otherwise stays with friends.

Perceptions of Programs that Exist

Consistent with the service providers’ comments, many youth do not seem to know about programs that exist. In addition, many of the youth interviewed spoke of significant suspicion about counselors or therapists—some even voiced considerable hostility. The youth we interviewed had not had good experiences with adults in their lives generally and chose program-contact carefully. There was a general skepticism that anything would be done to help them in Fort Erie.

Conclusion

From the review of the literature and the interviews we conducted with both stakeholders and youth on behalf of the Town of Fort Erie, we identify the following as important when designing programs for homeless youth in rural geographies. The interviews from providers and young people struggling with youth homelessness on a daily basis support our recommendations.

First, service delivery is best when it adopts a continuum of care approach to youth homelessness (Beer et al. 2003). Programs should provide youth with links to other social resources and community supports as many do not seem aware of these supports. Programs should also emphasize individual case-management strategies and have flexible and immediate crisis interventions (VHS, 2000 as cited by Beer et al. 2003). For example, preventative support services are needed, with early intervention by identifying youth who are (or might be) at risk for homelessness while they are in school (Beer et al. 2003). At the same time, crisis accommodation is needed, especially for younger youth (Beer et al. 2003), as we see some of these youth resorting to quite dangerous solutions of their own. This crisis accommodation could use forms of accommodation already available, e.g. motels, selected families and/or campgrounds. Funding for such programming should be ongoing and flexible (Beer et al. 2003; Cicada Place 2004).

Second, intervention services need to consider context, through community partnerships (Baker 2004), for instance, attention to local initiatives (Beer et al. 2003) and consideration of young people’s needs. Programs must be “socially appropriate, culturally sensitive, and available at times and places that are consistent with the practices of young people” (Caputo et al. 1996). This latter goal is successfully achieved through peer-mediation services, for instance, and 24-h phone lines.

Third, in addition to the need for a shelter, other structural problems call for redress. The challenges to young people seeking social assistance need to be addressed so that it is more accessible to those in need. Alternative and affordable housing strategies need to be implemented, alongside reflexive and responsive property management (Beer et al. 2003). Addressing age discrimination in the private rental market would also be useful (Cloke et al. in Farrin et al. 2005). It is also important to consider alternative transportation schemes such as buses, taxi vouchers or, as they have in one community in the United Kingdom, a moped-rental scheme.

Fourth, the rights and confidentiality of youth need to be considered. Ideally, programs will advocate for youth (Beer et al. 2003), be safe and non-judgmental (Beer et al. 2003) and will involve youth, through consultation for example (Transitions Committee 2003; Beer et al. 2003).

Finally, in our final remarks to service providers, the authors of this report noted the prevailing cynicism of the young people we spoke with who told us that nothing would be done. We suggested, and continue to contend, that this loss of faith in the adult community could have long term dire consequences. Further, it is unacceptable to leave young people in these dangerous and unstable situations when a small amount of political will could achieve some degree of positive change. The political will for change is necessary at the municipal level, however. Unfortunately, as of this writing, the youth of Fort Erie remain without the services they need.

As this is a very preliminary examination of the literature with an admittedly limited case study there are a number of avenues for future research that arise out of the data collected here. The first area that seems quite important would be a greater attention to programs currently in place in rural areas. Much of the literature uses urban experience with homeless youth or demographic data about homeless youth, but very little study has been made of such programs. We would recommend ethnographic site based work on actual programming to give a clearer insight into how rural youth are actually served at the local level. Consistent with this would be research into the various funding mechanisms that are used to support rural initiatives. Anecdotally and certainly in the case study undertaken here funding is quite limited for rural programming. However, it would be very useful to gain concrete data in this area for future advocacy and program planning. Finally we were quite taken with the unique approach of the Transitions Committee in Lanark County in which youth were interviewed by youth. New and innovative initiatives that include young people as their own ethnographers and researchers seem to us to have great promise. In the end research that focuses on problem-solving at the local level may well have the greatest impact on the future development of services for homeless youth and their communities.