EMPLOYMENT, EdUCATION & TRAINING

15

Why Don’t You Just Get a Job?
Homeless Youth, Social Exclusion
and Employment Training
Stephen Gaetz, Bill O’Grady

When I was an outreach worker with a health clinic for street youth, I often
encountered young people sitting on the sidewalk while panhandling1. Oneof the things that struck me most was how passers-by – people who essen­tially looked like me – felt perfectly free to direct negative and disparaging
comments at these youth. It was not unusual for people to say: “Why don’t
you get a job?” Often the comments were much worse.
When people pose such questions today, I usually ask them to reflect on what
it takes for any young person to get a job, and then show up day in, day out.
Of course, having an education is an obvious factor, followed by talent andmotivation. But one needs to go a bit deeper. While acknowledging thatacross Canada there are great differences in terms of privilege and opportu­
nity (where wealth, education, discrimination and regional difference play arole), it is safe to say that people who are stably housed experience distinct
and significant advantages when moving into the labour force.
Having a home means that many of your basic needs are met: it is a place
where one can eat, rest, sleep and recover from illness or injury. More than
1. Author Stephen Gaetz worked at Shout Clinic, a community health centre forhomeless youth in Toronto, between 1993 and 1999.

243

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

merely a physical space, a home means having an address and a telephone, allof which help when looking for work, and at a minimal level, makes a young
person more attractive to employers.
Perhaps more importantly, many, if not most teenagers can also count on abroad and diverse range of social supports – including parents and family,
friends, neighbours, teachers and counsellors, etc. – to nurture and mentor,
to provide emotional support and encouragement AND in some cases, theconnections needed to get work.
Being healthy, having adequate shelter, food, and transportation, all makeholding down a job easier by providing structure, security and the ability to rest
and recover so that one can get up and go to work day in, and day out. Given
all of this, it is still not easy for many young people to get a job, and it may takeyears – and a long history of work experience – before they are able to move out
on their own, live independently and support themselves. We also know thatin recent years, this transition period has grown longer (Côté & Byner, 2008).
For young people who are homeless, the challenges of obtaining and main­taining employment are that much greater. We know that young people whoare homeless are likely to have left school at a younger age compared to mosthoused youth. We know that homeless youth lack key resources – such as in­come, housing, and food – that enable most people to work. Some homelessyouth suffer additional challenges associated with mental health problems
and/or addictions. These factors are important to understand if we want tohelp move youth off the streets in a safe and sustainable way.
In this chapter, we ask a key question: What is the role of employment training
programs in helping young people move off the streets? More and more com­munities struggle with how to enhance the employability of homeless youth,
often knowing that traditional employment training programs and supports
have not always successfully engaged the most marginal of youth populations.
Our understanding of youth homelessness and employment is drawn from what
we have learned from three major research studies (1999, 2002, 2009)2, as wellas other research on street youth and employment (Karabanow, Hughes, et al.,2010; Gwadz et al., 2009; Robinson & Baron, 2007). It is our contention that if
2. The following analysis draws from our research on street youth conducted in 1999, 2002
and 2009 (Gaetz, O’Grady & Vaillancourt, 1999; Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; Gaetz, 2002;
Gaetz, O’Grady & Buccieri, 2010; O’Grady, Gaetz, & Buccieri, 2011). In each case a large
cohort of street involved youth were surveyed and interviewed about a broad range ofissues relating to their background, current situation, income generating activities andemployability. This article synthesizes our learnings from each of these studies.

244

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

employment really does have the potential to help end youth homelessness, thenwe really need to understand what factors enhance the success of such efforts. We
argue that this challenge begins with a clearer understanding of the factors in livesof street youth that make it so difficult to obtain and maintain work. Drawing on
what has been learned from innovative programming in Canada, we conclude
by presenting a clear and robust framework for developing effective employment
and training supports for homeless youth. Here we outline key components thatshould be considered when developing programs and focus on social inclusion
rather than the exclusionary factors that limit the prospects for street youth.

Thinking About Homeless Youth and Social Exclusion
A homeless youth staying in a shelter or living in an abandoned building may not
be visible to the average person. If they are working at a regular job, it may not evenoccur to anyone that they are homeless. Even a homeless person sitting on a side­
walk or on a park bench may not draw our attention. But when a young person
is panhandling or squeegeeing they become difficult to ignore, as our engagementwith them – indeed, our engagement with homelessness – becomes direct, person­
al, visceral and to the chagrin of many, unavoidable. When someone extends theirhand, stands in front of us, speaks directly to us, looks us in the eye, homelessness
is no longer invisible – it becomes something we are forced to deal with.
These experiences may lead us to question how and why young people become
homeless in the first place, and why are they not in school or working? To some,the sight of a panhandling youth is interpreted as evidence that the young person islazy or unwilling to work. While not exactly new, perspectives that seek to explain
poverty in terms of individual choices, motivation and morality have been gain­
ing traction in recent years. Neoliberal theories3 have entered popular culture andhave provided a popular, if problematic, narrative for explaining why some people
succeed and others do not, and underlie a belief that social issues such as poverty,
unemployment, addictions and mental health are personal, individual and private
issues, best addressed by individuals and families, rather than government or thebroader society (Navarro, 1998; Fourcade-Gourinchas & Babb, 2002; Kus, 2006).
The underlying thesis of neoliberal theorists is that at the bottom of the socialand economic hierarchy exists a group of people – people different from you
3. Neoliberalism is an ideological orientation that has had a huge influence on social policy
over the past several decades. Neoliberalism supports a radical notion of individualism,
arguing that shared social and economic resources and supports should be reduced, stateservices should become privatized, and that there should be a greater reliance on the ‘mar­ketplace’ to distribute goods and services. Informed by the neo-liberal critique of Beck
(1992) and Foucault (1991), the neo-liberal citizen is the ‘manager’ of his or her own risk;
one who contributes to the economy while at the same time caring for his or her family.

245

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

and me – who have willingly opted out of a range of mainstream social in­stitutions (Murray, 1994; 2012; Herrstein & Murray, 1996). ‘They’ are notinterested in getting jobs or going to school. ‘They’ flout laws and disrespect
authority. ‘They’ readily take advantage of handouts. Moreover, there is an
implied contagion effect: that by grouping such people together, there is thepotential for the destructive ideas and values that underlie poverty to spread
not only outwardly, but between generations, as well.
Additionally, neoliberal critiques suggest that government interventions, such associal programs and income supports, are an ineffective and counter-productive
response to the bad and immoral choices that individuals make, and may actuallycontribute to the problem by encouraging laziness, immoral conduct and urban
decay. That is, people will avoid getting a job if they are able to ‘take advantage’ ofbenefits, and people would rather be on welfare than work. Following this logic,
a key remedy to unemployment is to make employment more attractive thanliving off ‘the taxpayer,’ and cutting back or eliminating state support is seen as
the solution to the underclass problem. This logic suggests that homeless people
should pull themselves up by the bootstraps. It is also the logic that frames somepeople as ‘deserving’ of support, and others as the ‘undeserving poor’.
Lest we imagine that such theorizing is somehow disconnected from the ‘realworld’, it is worth looking at the results of a poll taken by the Salvation Armyin 2011. The report, “The Dignity Project”, found that many Canadians“hold opinions that perpetuate the idea that “the poor are the problem” andthat “their decisions and choices led them to a life of poverty”” (Salvation
Army, 2011). Some of the results indicate:• Nearly half of all respondents agree with the notion that if poor
people really want to work, they can always find a job.
• 43 percent agree that “a good work ethic is all you need to escape poverty.”• 41 percent believe that the poor would “take advantage” of any as­
sistance given and “do nothing.”• 28 percent believe the poor have lower moral values than average.
• Nearly a quarter believe that “people are poor because they are lazy.”

Homeless Youth and WorkSo, what do we know about homeless youth and employment? There is consid­
erable literature that attests to the challenges that homeless youth experience inobtaining and maintaining employment (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; O’Grady &Gaetz, 2004; O’Grady et al., 1998; Karabanow, Hughes, et al., 2010; Baron &246

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

Hartnagel, 2002; Keenan et al., 2006; Robinson & Baron, 2007). In our recent
report, “Surviving Crime and Violence”, 77% of our sample were unemployed(the rest having part-time or full-time jobs), and few were engaged in school,with over 65% having failed to complete high school (Gaetz et al., 2010).
A lack of traditional jobs does not necessarily mean that homeless youth are
not working. Because homeless youth face considerable barriers to employ­ment, many of those we surveyed engaged in what are referred to as “informal”
economic activities outside of the formal labour market, some of which were
technically legal, for example ‘under the table’ jobs, or ‘binning’ (collecting
bottles for refunds). Others engaged in more risky illegal or quasi-legal activi­
ties, including the sex trade, panhandling (begging), squeegeeing (cleaning car
windshields), and criminal acts such as theft and drug dealing (O’Grady et al.,
1998; Gaetz et al., 1999; Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; O’Grady & Gaetz, 2003).
A defining feature of such informal money making strategies is that they aresocially patterned. That is, certain social characteristics (background factors suchas age one left home, history of abuse, and education level, or situational factors
such as addictions or mental health) have a direct impact on what is possible, andwhat moneymaking strategies one engages in. Young people who come from theworst backgrounds – who suffered physical, sexual and emotional abuse at home,
who left home at an early age and dropped out of school, and who have addic­
tions challenges – are less likely to get regular jobs. This group is the most likely
to rely on illegal and quasi-legal forms of making money, including prostitution.
Those who stayed in school for longer periods, left home at a later age and havefewer addictions or mental health issues, are more likely to report having a job
currently or sometime in the past. The diverse backgrounds and experiences ofhomeless youth are thus important when considering employment as a pathway
off the streets. For some homeless youth, this pathway is shorter, straighter andless littered with obstacles than it is for others (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002).
Another feature of informal work is that it is highly flexible, and may in fact be key
to economic survival on the streets. The young people in our studies were able topoint out some advantages of this kind of work – you make your own hours, you
select your colleagues and there is companionship (in some cases). In terms of con­tributing to the development of labour market skills, it has been pointed out by
several researchers that many of the skills and routines learned through this work
– including teamwork and collaboration, strategic thinking and a considerationfor ‘consumer satisfaction’ – are transferable to work in the formal economy (Hur­tubise et al., 2003; Karabanow, Hughes, et al., 2010). The most obvious reason,
however, for engaging in such work is that it produces income – cash in hand – ona day in, day out basis. For people leading chaotic lives, who are hungry, have no247

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D Asavings and who live in extreme poverty, this latter point is particularly important.
While there are positive benefits to such work, it is important to note thatstreet youth also recognize the downside, including risk of criminal victimi­
zation (theft, sexual assault), trouble with the police, humiliation when rec­ognized by friends, and abuse by passers-by:“I find panhandling degrading. Here I am panhandling and the next
day I go for a job interview and the guy who’s interviewing you I
asked for money the day before, or I meet the parents of my old friend
from public school, people you don’t want to know and they know
you and see you and treat you like a sympathy case, to want to takeyou for food.” (Seamus, 19)4
There is ample research that suggests that homeless youth are much more
likely than housed youth to be victims of crime including assault and rob­
bery (Gaetz, 2004; Gaetz et al., 2010). Generating income in highly visible
settings, lacking access to safe places to retreat to after work, and strained
relationships with police (O’Grady et al., 2011) – meaning they are unlikely
to report crimes – means they make attractive targets for other criminals.
So why do homeless youth engage in these activities instead of just getting a reg­ular job? A common assumption is that rather than get a real job, street youth
panhandle or squeegee just for kicks or because it is easier than real work. This
interpretation of ‘lazy’ and/or ‘delinquent’ street youth is quite enduring, andis often the underlying theme of scornful comments by the media, politicians
and police. Indeed, Gordon (2004; 2006) has argued that panhandling andsqueegeeing are typically framed not as a strategy for those living in poverty toearn money, but rather as a reflection of the character of a homeless population
presumed to be lazy, uninterested in waged labour and lacking self-discipline.
Can we really consider street youth’s money making practices as simply a ‘choice’,or is something else going on? Is this more about circumstance and meeting sub­sistence needs in the face of poverty? Our past research (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002)
has addressed this question, exploring whether youth preferred panhandling,squeegeeing or illegal work (drug dealing) over having a regular job. Approxi­
mately 80% of males and females indicated that they do not like to be squeegee­
ing, stripping, selling drugs, etc., on a steady basis. When asked, “Are you interest­
ed in finding paid employment?” an overwhelming 83.4% of males and 87.8% offemales said “yes”. Street youth do not appear to be a group that is avoiding work.
4. Quotes from young people who are homeless are reproduced from Gaetz et al., 1999.

248

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

“I like having the ability to bring in my own money and not be depending on
welfare. I want to be off welfare. Every time I’ve gotten a job I’ve cut myself
off welfare, I haven’t screwed the system. I hate not working. I deal with an
employment counselor twice a week trying to find work.” (Brian, 22)
Other researchers, such as Gwadz et al., (2009) identify the degree to which infor­
mal work is considered demeaning and humiliating to many youth. These young
people, rather than ‘aspiring’ to such work or opting out of the formal economy,
as some theorists would have it, typically have very conventional aspirations anddreams regarding employment, obtaining a career and financial independence.
There is no clear evidence, then, that homeless youth lack motivation and/or are opposed to, or are actively avoiding mainstream employment. Rather,most homeless youth do have records of employment, and have had morethan one job, though their employment histories are precarious. When they
do get jobs, it is usually low-wage, part-time, dead end work at the marginsof the economy (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; Robinson & Baron, 2007): em­
ployment that rarely provides a living wage, or an opportunity for future up­
ward mobility (Côté & Bynner, 2008; Standing, 2011). In fact, because of
the marginal nature of the jobs street youth are able to obtain, many report
unfair treatment by employers, including racism, sexual harassment, and insome cases, not being paid for work done (this is more often the case when
payment is under the table) (Gaetz, 2002). For many, then, the experienceof mainstream employment is not necessarily a positive one.
“What skills did you learn at these jobs? It depends on what point of view
you have. At my last job I think I learned that people really don’t haveany morals and the world truly sucks. I was starting to be optimistic fora while but that whole experience taught me otherwise.” (Johnny, 22)
Clearly, informal money making strategies such as panhandling, binning,squeegeeing and prostitution are not the primary employment choices ofstreet youth, and neither are dead end jobs. The question then becomes what
keeps street youth from obtaining and maintaining suitable employmentthat would allow them to sustain themselves and move off the streets?

Is Employment Training the Solution?
The ability to obtain work in a competitive labour market is linked to ‘human cap­ital’, which entails, “the abilities, skills, and knowledge acquired by an individual
through various channels such as inheritance, education and/or training. Human
capital is the currency people bring to invest in their jobs” (Robinson & Baron,
249

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

2007:38). It is this lack of human capital experienced by some marginalized popu­
lations (such as homeless youth) that provides the ‘logic’ for employment training.
There are three main approaches to enhancing the employability of youth thatare generally embraced in Canada. The first is the informal learning that comesfrom family and community. On a material level, families provide shelter, in­come and resources (including food) while young people stay in school and/or
acquire their first jobs. It is also within the home that young people graduallylearn how to look for work, what to say during an interview, the importance ofpunctuality, how to deal with the challenges of work life (difficult bosses and col­leagues), and budgeting. Wealth and privilege provide many additional advan­
tages to young people, including access to better schools, supports and resources
for achievement or, conversely, support when young people face challenges.
The second approach to enhancing youth employability is related to education,and key here is the desire to get young people to stay in school as long as possible,
and obtain education and training that meets the needs of the labour market.
Statistics Canada describes education as a ‘gateway’ to higher earnings (Statistics
Canada, 2008). The evidence that the higher one’s level of education is, thebetter one’s employment outcomes will be, is so overwhelming that it is hardly
worth reviewing (Low, 2006). Minimally, a high school diploma increases one’s
chances of work, and expands one’s opportunities. Moving on to college oruniversity only enhances these opportunities, and the rise in ‘credentialism’ only
increases the need for more post-secondary education (Côté & Bynner, 2008).
Finally, there are employment training programs, designed to enhance theemployability of the long-term unemployed, social assistance recipients andother marginalized populations that face challenges integrating into the la­bour market (Greene, 2003; Lafer, 2002; Robinson & Baron, 2007). These
programs have as their goal to improve the ‘human capital’ of such persons
by providing them with the necessary skills to prepare them to successfullycompete for and keep jobs; in a sense, to “work their way out of poverty”(Lafer, 2002:94). Such training usually involves a combination of “hardskills” – technical skills for jobs, such as computer training, trades etc., – and“soft skills” – that focus on work readiness including job search and interview
strategies, or how to manage conflict with other employees or managers.
The best employment training programs are effective in that they meet theirobjective of improving the employability of marginalized youth by providingthem with the supports necessary to transition into the world of work. Suchprograms move beyond a narrow neoliberal orientation (focusing on skills de­velopment and ‘motivation’) and incorporate strategies to overcome many of250

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

the challenges faced by young people who experience social exclusion. Special
efforts are made to recruit and support sympathetic employers who are willingto hire marginalized youth who are perceived (correctly or incorrectly) to bea ‘risk’. There are many excellent job shadowing, coaching and/or mentoring
supports designed to help young people keep their jobs and deal with the chal­lenges that work can bring, including, ironically, the successes.
When such programs target street youth, there is a larger goal. That is, employ­ment training becomes framed as a response to homelessness, in that assisting
young people to obtain and sustain employment represents a pathway off thestreets. This goal recognizes that traditional approaches to youth employment
training may not work with street youth, and that few homeless youth actually
successfully participate in such training. To understand why homeless youth
do not succeed in such programs, one needs to consider from an institutional
perspective the ways in which most employment training programs are organ­
ized, and how this may clash with the lived experience of young people who arehomeless. A highly structured program with a set number of required hours ofattendance on consecutive days or weeks might work for young people withshelter, food and supports, but not necessarily for street youth. Lack of money
for transportation, food and necessities, combined with the inherent instabil­
ity and unexpected crises of their day-to-day lives may make participating insuch programs particularly difficult for street youth. Unfortunately, for thosedelivering employment training, there is not necessarily much room for flex­
ibility, as the terms and conditions of programs are often dictated by funders.
All of this raises an important question: Do employment training programs
offer a solution to street youth unemployment? As will be seen, our argu­
ment is that employment training must be integrated into a broader web of
supports – the kind of supports that many or most housed youth have accessto. Stand-alone employment training that is divorced from other necessary
supports including safe and appropriate housing, income, nutrition, social andhealth supports will generally not meet the needs of most homeless youth.

An Alternative Perspective on Poverty: Social Exclusion
To truly understand why a person – or group of people – faces challenges in ob­
taining work, we need to look at the multiple factors that have an impact on em­
ployability beyond skills and ‘motivation’ levels. The concept of social exclusion
provides an effective means for understanding the range of factors that reduce
people’s access to opportunities and shape what is possible for them. Social ex­
clusion describes the circumstances and experiences of persons who are shut out,
fully or partially, from the social, economic, political and cultural institutions of251

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

society (Byrne, 1999; Mandianapour, 1998). Such an account begins with therecognition that it is not unusual for marginalized groups and individuals to besocially, economically and spatially separated from the people and places that
other citizens have access to within advanced industrial societies (Sibley, 1995).
Social exclusion allows us to make sense of the degree to which individual experi­
ences and histories overlap with certain social, political and economic conditions(including poverty, unemployment, inadequate housing, racism, sexism and hom­ophobia) that restrict young people’s access to spaces, institutions and practices that
increase opportunities and reduce risk. The link between such structural factors
and personal histories shapes and limits people’s participation and engagement insociety, and thus impacts the choices individuals make, by narrowing the choicesthat are available. Finally, social exclusion reveals the degree to which popular soci­etal myths – things such as equality of opportunity, education as an equalizer, equal
access to health care, safety and justice – are just that: myths that paper over the
degree to which opportunity, access and rights are unevenly distributed.
Much of the literature on social exclusion has focused on the predicament of mar­
ginalized youth. Key researchers such as MacDonald (1998; 2004; 2008), Jones(2002) and Blackman (1998) have written extensively on social exclusion (or in­clusion) and how it shapes transitions to adulthood, in the areas of education, em­
ployment, crime and substance use, for instance. Social exclusion gives us insight
into the employability of young people and the role that employment training
might play (Macdonald, 1998; 2004; 2008; Hammer, 2003). Key institutions
such as family, schools, the labour market, the education system and the legal
system influence this process, and can help (or hinder) young people’s navigation
towards adulthood and the world of work. A measure of social inclusion is thedegree to which such institutions support young people’s transitions and enable
them to obtain and maintain employment, or on the other hand, whether the ab­sence of such institutions creates unique challenges and/or barriers to opportunity.
This makes sense in the context of youth homelessness, where social inclusion­ary factors that most of us take for granted – having a home, address, adultsupport and time to grow into adulthood, as well as access to income, food,recreation and transportation – are shortened or largely absent. To truly un­derstand the limited employability of young people who are homeless – andthe challenges for employment training – it is necessary to consider the degree
to which they experience social exclusion in complex ways across a number ofrelated areas, in a way that is cumulative in nature. In the following section we
explore the key dimensions of social exclusion faced by homeless youth, includ­ing inadequate housing and shelter; lack of income; educational disengage­
ment; compromised health; weak social capital; chaotic lives; and finally, an252

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

interrupted adolescence. These are the barriers to employability that homelessyouth experience: factors that must be taken into account when employment,
and in particular employment training, is considered as a pathway off the street.
Housing and Shelter

Perhaps the most obvious example of the social exclusion faced by homeless youth
is their inability to secure housing, because of their young age, inexperience andmost importantly, their poverty. Street youth spend much of their time moving
between shelters, friends’ places, squats and the streets. When they do obtainrental housing, it is often temporary (in low rent motels or boarding houses)
and/or at the margins of the housing market, where accommodations are poorly
regulated and dishonest landlords are waiting to take advantage (Gaetz, 2002).
Being without secure shelter has a profound impact on people’s ability to exert
greater control over their lives, as shelter in fact underpins any person’s efforts
to work. It is at home where one rests and recovers so that one can work thenext day, where one creates stability and organizes one’s world, maintains hy­
giene, eats and stores food (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; Karabanow, Carson, etal., 2010). Lacking secure and stable housing means having no address to put
on a resume (which is not exactly a confidence builder for potential employers),
and a limited ability to present a nice, clean appearance for job interviews andto maintain interview clothes. Perhaps more importantly, inadequate housing
has an impact on one’s ability to keep a job once one is secured.
“My housing situation has never been stable. I’d be there (at work),sometimes with no place to go at night, then I’d be exhausted at work.
I didn’t think it was cool to tell the boss I had nowhere to live. A lotof times I would just not be able to go back to work.” (Angus, 23)
The importance of being able to ‘disappear’ behind a secure door cannot be un­derestimated. When young people are homeless, they are much more likely to
be victims of crime (Gaetz et al., 2010; Gaetz, 2004). Safety is compromised
when one does not have a secure home to retreat to (though it is acknowledgedthat not all homes are safe). Likewise, having the ability to recover from ill­
ness, injury, fatigue or from the influence of alcohol or drugs is more difficult
without a safe and secure place. The alternative is either over-crowded social
service environments where health and safety are endangered, or public andsemi-public spaces, where control and security are nearly impossible.
As a reflection of social inclusion, most people rely on their housing to en­able them to work. This is something few street youth can count on.
253

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

IncomeIt may sound strange to talk about income as a necessary condition for employ­ment, or even training. However, for all of us, it is key. Adequate income allows
us to pay for our housing. It means we can purchase the clothing and hygiene
products necessary to be presentable for a job and interview, but also for spe­cific types of work (the need for work-boots, dress clothes, etc.). Money is nec­
essary for transportation to and from work. It also pays for food, ideally threemeals a day. If one gets a job or enrolls in a training program, income is needed
to ensure all of these things are in place before their first pay cheque arrives,
which for many people may be two weeks or even a month away. One cannot
work for weeks without food, for instance. Thus, not having an income con­tributes to the exclusion of young people who are homeless from the workforce.
Education

At a time when youth unemployment rates in Canada are particularly high(17.2% in the summer of 20115), young people and adults alike generally recog­
nize the link between a good education and the ability to compete in the job mar­ket. People have become increasingly aware that shifts in the economy require amore educated workforce, and the rise of ‘credentialism’ has resulted in a steadydecline in dropout rates in Canada, reaching a low of 8.5% in 2009-20106.
It is well known that the dropout rates for young people who are homelessare extremely high. In two studies we conducted, the dropout rate ranged
from 57% to 65%, with an even higher rate among those who engage inprostitution, squeegeeing or panhandling (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; Gaetz etal., 2010). Low rates of high school completion are typically due to a combina­
tion of factors, including (often undiagnosed) learning disabilities and mental
health problems, trauma, and addictions issues (either their own, or family
members’) that may have resulted in poor school performance and disengage­
ment before becoming homeless. However, this is not the case for all young
people, and for many it is the experience of homelessness that leads to droppingout. Becoming homeless means not only the loss of home, family and friends,
but disengagement from school and the adult supports that go with it.
Unfortunately, while there are programs across Canada that support young
people who are homeless in their efforts to pursue their education, these are theexception rather than the rule. Most emergency services focus on meeting basic
5. http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2011/09/27/pol-finley-g20-youth-jobs.html
6. Statistics Canada: http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=32

254

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

needs, and supports for independent living more often focus on skills develop­
ment, rather than on education. That ongoing participation in education is ob­
viously difficult for homeless youth and is not a top priority for service provid­ers, is one of the clearest manifestations of social exclusion of homeless youth.
Compromised HealthLife on the streets is incredibly challenging and research overwhelmingly suggests
it has a negative impact on health and well-being. This includes greater incidenc­
es of illness and injury (including upper respiratory tract infections such as colds,
laryngitis, and sinusitis), higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, higher
mortality, as well as an increased future risk of diabetes, heart disease, arthritis
and muscle and joint problems (Kulik et al., 2011; Frankish et al., 2005; Boivin
et al., 2005). The inability to maintain personal hygiene can result in lice, scabies,
fungal infections, sores and dental and gum disease (Kulik et al., 2011). Being
homeless also makes recovery from illness a challenge, since while most people
who are sick like to recover at home, this is generally not an option for people
living on the streets or even those staying in emergency shelters. The inability totake steps to prevent and recover from illness is a reflection of social exclusion.
Compromised health can have an impact on one’s ability to obtain and main­
tain work, even for a person who is young. For young people with growing
bodies, inadequate nutrition becomes a problem. In spite of charitable foodprovision (shelters and soup kitchens) in many Canadian cities, there is strong
evidence that young people who are homeless suffer from food deprivationand malnutrition (Tarasuk et al., 2005; 2009). Not only that, the inability tostore food and a lack of income mean that even if one has a job, one may nothave access to food on a daily basis necessary to allow one to continue working.
It is well established that homeless populations in general suffer from higher
incidences of mental illnesses including post-traumatic stress disorder, psychi­
atric disorders (such as schizophrenia) and mood disorders (such as depression
and bipolar) (Kulik et al., 2011; McKay, 2009; Kidd, 2004). In this volume,
both Elizabeth McKay and Sean Kidd report that street youth exhibit very
high levels of depression, anxiety (obsessive/compulsive and phobic), hostility,
paranoia, psychotic symptoms and suicidal thoughts. While teen years are dif­ficult for many young people – whether housed or not – the degree to which
many homeless youth suffer from mental illness, disorders and depression is a
key factor that will impair their ability to work (Lenz-Rashid, 2006).
Addictions, like mental illness, can be both a cause and a consequence ofhomelessness, with street youth populations showing higher rates of sub­255

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

stance use and addictions than housed youth (Adlaf & Zdnowicz, 1999;
Haley et al., 2004; Roy et al., 2009; Dematteo et al., 1999). The health con­sequences of increased drug use and addictions are well known, and include
higher incidences of HIV, Hepatitis A and C, and other diseases.
Substance use becomes a problem for anyone when it impairs one’s ability tocarry out daily tasks, maintain relationships and obtain and retain a job. For
homeless youth, higher rates of substance use and addictions can be traced
to their response to the challenges of life on the streets – having to deal withdepression, trauma, violence, unresolved issues from their past, and in manycases, emerging mental illness – which leads many to greater risk-taking be­
haviours and the tendency to self-medicate with illicit drugs. For some, sub­stance use is the outcome of the struggle to survive:“(Prostitution is) incredibly degrading - I became a serious alcoholicand drug addict because of it. Because it was so degrading it was
my only way of dealing with it and that’s why I don’t do it anymore,both jobs, stripping and escorting. I was always incredibly high orincredibly drunk or both and ended up in the detox. I wouldn’t doit again, it was a bad time in my life and I didn’t care about myself
or anybody else. I figured I was going to end up dead.” (Monica, 21)
The health consequences of homelessness present considerable barriers to some­one’s ability to move forward with their life. This is particularly true for young
people with acute mental health and/or addictions challenges (not to mention
learning disabilities) and for whom finding work will be extremely difficult
without ongoing support. Research suggests that having housing can play a bigrole in reducing the most negative effects of mental illness (Forchuk et al., 2011).
Chaotic Lifestyle

The ability to think ahead and exert some measure of control over one’s daily life
is a measure of inclusion; one that we rarely think about, but one that is so cen­tral to our ability to work. Those who are gainfully employed must have somestructure in their lives. Days are organized around work, transportation, eating,recreation and sleep. Obtaining work or employment requires the ability tothink forward, to plan and prepare, and understand the consequences of erratic
behavior or unexpected events. Unfortunately for young people who are home­less, chaos and instability are in many ways the defining features of their lives.
One of the consequences of the chaotic lifestyle of street youth is that long­term thinking and planning become almost a luxury, as attention is focused on
256

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

meeting immediate needs. Maintaining a job becomes difficult, and money­
making is often focused around meeting immediate needs. Keeping track oftime (both during a given day, but also week to week) is challenging without
clocks and calendars. Food security and the ability to plan and control one’s
diet is difficult without a refrigerator and storage areas. Creating regularity in
one’s day – in terms of controlling when one eats, sleeps, has visitors (or not) –becomes a challenge, and what we would normally consider routine activities
become very unpredictable. The immediate priorities of food, shelter and se­curity, for instance, loom much larger than is typically the case for mainstream
teenagers, who are generally more able to focus on longer-term goals (educa­
tion, career) because they have more adequate supports.
This short term thinking, accentuated by the chaos and instability of life on thestreets, means youth do not have the luxury of considering the longer-term con­sequences of their behaviours (for example, engaging in unprotected sex, drug use,
involvement in criminal acts). It also means that they may make compromises thatare not in their best interests, or give up advocating for their own rights, if there isno obvious short-term benefit. All of this undermines the efforts of homeless youth
to look for work, to consistently attend employment training, or to keep a job.
Weak Social Capital

The concept of having an effective and responsive support system is highlighted in
the theory of social capital, which considers the value of relationships. Social capitalrefers to those important and valuable social resources (knowledge, abilities, con­nections, etc.) that family, friends, and others can draw on to support one’s life
chances and challenges (Portes, 1998; Shier et al., 2010). Social capital theory
allows us to understand the different human resources that people draw on andthe degree to which some individuals and groups are disadvantaged in this regard.
Many young people grow up relying on a broad range of social supports to help
them move into adulthood, beginning with family, but also including friends,
neighbours, teachers and counsellors. These relationships ideally provide support
in the form of love, guidance, encouragement and models of adult behaviour. In
the best case scenario, these supports enable young people to learn the skills forday-to-day living, and to nurture dreams of adult life that include family and occu­
pation. These supports also are key to helping many youth find and maintain work.
The scope and nature of homeless youth’s social capital is profoundly limited.
Once on the streets, their connections with extended family, school and commu­
nities of origin are weakened, and their network of social supports is diminishedto the point that they may come to rely more and more on their circle of street
257

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

youth friends. This network, often described by street youth as their “street fam­ily”, may provide them with precious knowledge (‘street smarts’) and resources
for surviving on the streets, (money, food, clothing, etc.). Such networks may
also provide some degree of safety – particularly important for young women.
While the social capital of street friends may give youth resources to survive
the harsh life of the streets, its value for helping them move forward with
their lives is much more limited. In terms of employment, street youth net­
works do not effectively prepare youth for a job search (help with resumes orinterview preparation), or commonly provide the useful “connections” thatso many young people rely on to get work. Finally, the demands of street re­lationships – which are rooted in an unstructured and chaotic lifestyle – mayinvariably undermine one’s ability to keep a job once it is obtained.
Adolescence Interrupted

It is the loss of adolescence (or at best, its early end) that perhaps most clearly
defines the social exclusion of homeless youth. Theories of adolescent develop­
ment often describe the transition from childhood to adulthood as one thatcan be challenging and potentially problematic, even in an environment thatis relatively stable. The developmental tasks7 associated with “becoming” anadult are many, and are distributed across a range of social, psychological andbiological domains, including for instance, the growth of adult bodies, as wellas the assumption of legal rights and responsibilities, as defined by the state.
From the early teen years on, young people develop new capabilities and takeon new responsibilities bit by bit, over an extended period of time, in the areasof education, income, housing, social relations, health and mobility. All of thisis typically accomplished with lots of adult supervision and support both within
and outside the home, with a commitment to education as a central institu­
tional support. And in recent years, the period of adolescence has lengthened, as
shifts in the job market and housing affordability, as well as pressures to contin­
ue with education, make living independently more and more difficult for teens.
Unfortunately, the experience of homelessness typically means that young peo­
ple are shut out of the normal process of adolescent development that so manyof us consider essential for a healthy transition to adulthood. Rather than being
granted the opportunity of adjusting to adulthood and its responsibilities andchallenges over an extended period of time, street youth experience an adoles­
cence interrupted, where the process of moving into adulthood is accelerated.
7. Developmental tasks are achievements considered necessary for a successful transition
to the next stage of life (e.g., finding a job as a sign of becoming an adult).

258

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

In spite of the trauma resulting from becoming homeless and the inevitableinstability produced by profound poverty, these young people simultaneously
are charged with the task of effectively managing a diverse and complex set oftasks and risks. In some ways, they are thrust into adult roles and responsibili­ties almost immediately – having to obtain shelter and run their own house­
hold, generate income (and manage money both effectively and responsibly)
and take care of their nutritional needs. They must navigate their institutional
relationships (school, health care, government benefits, and employment) withminimal support, and often without basic identification documents. They arealso exposed to early sexual activity, personal safety concerns and substance use
challenges in a much shorter time frame than is typical. All of these challenges
may be faced rapidly, within the first several months – or even weeks – ofbecoming homeless, at a time when young people are still suffering from thetrauma of leaving their homes, families and communities.
All of this suggests that for young people who become homeless, the challenge ofmoving from childhood to adulthood is qualitatively different than for most teen­
agers. Young people in this situation are typically denied access to the resources,
support, and perhaps most significantly, the time that we allow for a successfultransition to adulthood. They are therefore excluded from the process of gradually
increasing independence that is widely held to be crucial to human development.

How Does All This Help Us Think About
Employment and Training?
In Canada, employment training programs are designed to provide support for
those facing barriers to employment. Through the development of soft skills(job readiness) and hard skills (marketable skills), they expand people’s humancapital and make them more competitive in the labour market. While we are
not suggesting there is no need for skills development within the street youth
population, at its worst this “technical” approach to employment training canbe seen as treating street youth merely as empty vessels into which hard skills
and soft skills are poured, with the expectation that they will have greater knowl­edge and motivation to enter the competitive job market. One must be waryof a neoliberal perspective that champions training programs as a simple andstraightforward solution to homeless youth unemployment. The failure of street
youth to participate in, and stick it out in these programs may unfortunately
reinforce the neoliberal focus on their individual failings and inadequacies, andthe inaccurate perception that they are lazy or simply “lack motivation”.
This raises a fundamental question: can employment training help street youth
move off the streets, and into gainful employment? Surprisingly, there is not a259

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

lot of research on the effectiveness of employment training programs. Much of
the research is inconclusive as to whether such programs do increase employ­ment rates of participants, whether housed or not (Lerman, 2000), or have areal impact on post-program earnings (Lafer, 2000; Orr et al., 1996).
One of the only studies on street youth and employment programs shows
mixed results (Robinson & Baron, 2007). In their study, the young people
who participated in employment training spoke positively about the skills theylearned and developed, improved confidence and the opportunity to gain ex­
perience. They also identified key characteristics of staff that were important:“Staff should be understanding, open, non-judgmental and try to en­
gage with the youth on a somewhat personal level in order to assist
them. Even if youth are not actively seeking employment, they may
attend such programs for the social support and understanding that isoffered, accessing “conventional” forms of support.” (Ibid., 47)
From an experiential perspective, these programs were clearly important to
the young people who participated. Whether such programs actually im­
proved the employability – and employment outcomes – of participants is
not so evident. Many left the program and did not find work. The hardskills learned were not always in demand, or did not adequately open doors
to employment. Overall, they conclude that such training experiences did
not appear “to add much in the way of human capital to actually invest in
employment. They appear to try and provide an avenue for youth to exploit
what limited human capital they have” (Robinson & Baron, 2007:43).
So, while employment training is certainly important and may contributeto the development of skills for young people who are homeless, it must be
considered in a broader context: one that responds to the social exclusionary
factors that undermine their ability not only to participate in training pro­grams, but more generally in the labour market. The failure to look beyond
the stereotypes of street youth and the challenges they face undermines theeffectiveness of employment training as a solution to youth homelessness.
Obtaining and maintaining a job is about much more than motivation, skills,
hustle and opportunity. The social exclusionary framework we have explored
here helps us not only understand the lived circumstances of homeless youth,
but how an approach to youth homelessness that includes employment train­
ing can be most effective. For young people who become homeless, social exclu­
sion is experienced across several related domains, with the degree of exclusion
growing the longer one remains homeless. Solutions to youth homelessness260

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

that emphasize one dimension of social exclusion (job training, or treatment,
for instance) may work for some people, but for most, such an approach is like­ly to be of limited value. In fact, it is the complex interaction between the dif­ferent dimensions of social exclusion that points to the need for a broader andmore comprehensive intervention in order to truly achieve long lasting success.

Starting with Social Inclusion:
A Framework for Training and Employment
There is a role for employment training in strategies to address youth homeless­ness. We argue that employment training is most effective when integrated into a
broader system of supports – supports that address social exclusionary factors. It
is when we enable the social inclusion of marginalized young people that employ­ment training can have a sustainable impact. Two examples of ‘promising prac­
tices’ presented in this volume (“BladeRunners”, and “Train for Trades”) dem­
onstrate ways of designing employment training experiences for marginalized
young people that are effective, and produce desired and long lasting outcomes.
Drawing from these examples, and from our analysis of the social exclusion­ary factors that present barriers to street youth employment, we provide aframework for employment training. Here we identify key factors related toprogram design that contribute to the social inclusion of homeless youth.
This framework supports effective outcomes that will not only help young
people obtain and maintain work, but will reduce the chances that they re­main in poverty or become homeless again. Key elements include:
1) Program Philosophy

An employment training program for homeless youth must demonstrate fidel­
ity to three principles: a) activities must be designed to support the needs ofthe developing adolescent; b) programming must address socially exclusionary
factors that make participation in employment and employment training achallenge; and c) young people need to leave the program with access to better
jobs (and higher wages) than they would have if they did not participate in the
program. Other key features of a successful program include:• The development of a mission, goals and objectives that are clear,attainable and broadly agreed upon by diverse stakeholders.
• A willingness to support the most marginalized of street youth, as
they will have the most difficulty in participating in mainstream
employment training.
261

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A• Adoption of a ‘harm reduction’ philosophy and approach that
accepts substance users as they are, while at the same time pro­moting healthier lifestyles.
• Adoption of inclusive, anti-discriminatory philosophy, policies andpractices that are sensitive and relevant to youth of different socialand cultural backgrounds, and address the needs of young people
additionally marginalized by racism, sexism and/or homophobia.
2) Structural Supports

Stand-alone employment training is not likely to work for young people whoare homeless. Homeless youth are in the end adolescents, and their physical,
cognitive, emotional and social development is occurring in a context of so­cial exclusion where they lack traditional supports to navigate these changes.
Without key structural supports, many young people will be unable to partici­
pate, complete and succeed in such programs.
• ­Stable housing – This is perhaps the key component. If young peo­
ple are absolutely homeless (on the street or in shelters), their chanceof obtaining work or successfully completing employment training
is greatly restricted, and this is even more so for those with mental
health problems or addictions. Longer-term transitional housing
or independent living is ideal, as this gives people more flexibil­
ity, stability, privacy and personal control over their circumstances.
Staying in emergency shelters likely increases challenges for thoseengaged in training, especially if young people are not safe, are notgetting adequate food (including food to take to work), have restric­
tive curfew policies (making work outside of 9-to-5 problematic),or lack privacy and the ability to store clothes and other resources.
• ­Income – No youth can work, or even successfully participate intraining, unless they have income or financial support. This allows
them to purchase necessary clothing and equipment as well as per­sonal hygiene products. It enables them to purchase food so theycan eat every day, and pay for transportation. In addition, many
young people will benefit from financial literacy training, as wellas assistance in setting up a bank account. For young people whoare not used to having money (and especially those who are also
dealing with addictions issues) necessary supports also include en­suring that the good fortune of ‘payday’ does not become a disaster.
• ­Access to appropriate health care and social supports – Being
healthy is important for anyone who wants to work. Proper nutrition,
262

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

sleep and a reduction in stress are key to ensuring health, making theadequacy of housing and income supports health issues. Some young
people face additional health challenges relating to mental healthproblems and/or addictions. They can succeed in employment train­
ing and/or obtaining work if they have proper supports in place.
3) Program Components

In addition to enhancing soft skills and hard skills, those establishing training
programs for homeless youth should include the following program components:• ­A focus on the development of real, marketable skills – Employ­ment training is not considered to be effective if the skills learned
merely enable young people to better compete for low-wage, deadend jobs. Training should focus on developing marketable skills, andideally be based on an analysis of labour market trends. Both Trainfor Trades and BladeRunners train young people in skilled trades,and open doors for higher paying, and in some cases unionized, jobs.
• ­Client driven case management – An individualized case manage­
ment approach is important to ensure that the needs of young partic­
ipants are addressed, and that young people are assisted in navigating
the challenges, opportunities and crises that go with the experienceof training, getting a job and earning money. Key here is ensuringthat good staff are hired, have proper training and values that alignwith the program goals, and can therefore ensure program fidelity.
• Targeting and supporting special needs – Not all street youth
will experience the same challenges – there will be differences inhealth and mental health status, for instance. Some young people
will be dealing with the challenges of addictions, while others
will not. The key point is that the more likely an individual is
to experience any or all of these barriers, the more complex theirtransition to adulthood, and their transition from the instabil­
ity of homelessness to the stability of housing, adequate income,good health and healthy relationships.
• ­Mentoring and job shadowing – For marginalized youth whose
social capital is weak and who lack strong relationships with adults,
coaching is key. Job coaching helps young people stay in the pro­gram, or stay on the job, in the face of emerging challenges andcrises. Coaching provides support in cases where there is conflicton the job, where participants lose confidence, or when incidents
263

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

outside of the work/training experience interfere, including occa­
sional ‘binges’, problems with friends, uncontrolled payday spend­ing, etc. The best job coaches are on call 24 hours.
Mentoring provides young people with an opportunity to learn
from people with experience. Mentors can be volunteers withwork experience – program graduates often are the best mentors,
because as ‘peers’ they have a deep understanding of the chal­lenges that young people face.
• ­Opportunities for educational advancement – A focus on em­
ployment training without also paying attention to educational
needs may lead to a lifetime of low-paying, dead end jobs, in ahighly competitive job market. Given the rise of credentialism
and the recognized importance of education, efforts should bemade to integrate opportunities to re-engage with school, andas a minimum, to complete high school. A focus on educationbuilds a training program on principles of social inclusion.
4) Institutional Components

For a program to achieve its goals and objectives, key institutional components
must be in place, including:• ­Ongoing core funding – Effective training programs of the sort
described here cannot be delivered without appropriate finan­cial investment. Many community agencies working with people
who are homeless struggle to obtain necessary funding to deliver
their programs. At the same time, government funding for em­
ployment training is often structured on the assumption thatparticipants have housing, food and money for transportation.
Operating an employment training program for homeless youth
according to the framework we are describing requires what somemight consider to be a significant investment of resources (forinstance, “Train for Trades” estimates its cost per participant isaround $10,000 annually). However, this is an intelligent invest­
ment that arguably saves much more money in the long run, if
it reduces the risk that participants will remain homeless, end up
in the correctional system, or have health conditions that worsen.
Moreover, it is an investment in the economy.
• ­Strategic partnerships – Successful employment training pro­grams – especially ones using the framework outlined here – nec­264

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

essarily require strategic partnerships with service providers, thepublic and the private sector in order to meet the needs of the pro­gram and the participants. These partnerships will involve services
outside of the homeless sector where necessary, in order to put inplace housing, education, addictions and mental health supports.
Training support may include colleges, as well as contractors andtrades people, who have the skills to work with young people fromdifficult backgrounds. Creative and strategic partnerships are thehallmark of an effective program. Both BladeRunners and Trainfor Trades worked effectively with local trade unions to enable their
participants to learn on the job, and to gain credentials that would
eventually allow them to become union members.
• ­Commitment to ongoing program evaluation – In order to as­
sess whether the program is actually creating real and sustainablechanges, the program must incorporate evaluation, following up
with participants to assess the impact of the program in theirlives. We need to know what works and for whom.
• Strong corporate engagement – One of the key challengesof employment training for marginalized youth is finding em­
ployers willing to take a chance on youth they may – rightly or
wrongly – perceive to be problematic. Establishing effective rela­tions with employers, understanding their concerns and needs,
and providing the right kind of support for young people basedon this understanding, can lead to positive experiences for young
people and for employers as well. The article by Noble and Oseni
in this volume outlines effective corporate engagement strategies
as part of a project by Raising the Roof.

Conclusion
Young people who are homeless experience considerable barriers in obtain­
ing and maintaining regular jobs that provide sufficient wages and hours toallow them to move off the streets. Lack of access to the labour market leads
many young people to engage in unconventional – and sometimes illegal –money making activities in order to support themselves.
Employment training programs have long been promoted as an effective so­lution to the challenges marginalized youth face in getting good jobs. How­ever, traditional approaches to employment training programs are generally
not suited to the life circumstances of homeless youth, and not surprisingly,
participation by homeless youth is low.
265

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

We have argued that the barriers to employment are best understood throughan analysis of the social exclusion of street youth that impacts on labour mar­ket participation. It is not simply a lack of skills or motivation that keeps
street youth out of the formal labour market. A lack of housing, income
and education, combined with potential health challenges (including mental
health problems and addictions), a chaotic lifestyle associated with home­lessness, weak social networks and a shortened adolescence all shape the con­text in which homeless youth try to earn a living.
Understanding the different dimensions of social exclusion requires that welook at not only the circumstances of being young and homeless, but also(and importantly) at how our response to homelessness may in fact increasesocial exclusion, and create additional barriers to finding work, moving off
the streets and long-term stability.
Employment training programs can provide support for homeless youth, but
only if they are designed to move beyond the development of hard and soft skills.
It is beyond the scope and mandate of employment training to address youth
homelessness when underlying social exclusionary factors such as lack of shelter,income, food, etc., become the real barriers to participation. We have proposeda social inclusionary framework for effective employment training for street
youth that is designed to address their developmental needs, and that recognizes
the degree to which social exclusion can block access to the labour market.
There are solutions to youth homelessness, and employment training canplay a role when integrated into a program that addresses other basic needsof the young people involved. The problem is not that homeless youth arelazy or simply “lack motivation”, but rather that, as for any adolescent, thebest outcomes are achieved when a social inclusionary environment supports
their engagement in learning and helps them move forward with their lives.

References
Baron, S. W., & Hartnagel, T. F. (2002). Street youth and labor market strain. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 30(6), 519-533.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Blackman, S. (1998). Young homeless people and social exclusion. Youth and Policy, 59, 1-7.
Boivin, J. F., Roy, E., Haley, N., & Galbaud du Fort, G. (2005). The health of street youth: A
Canadian perspective. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 96(6), 432-437.
Byrne, D. (1999). Social Exclusion. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
Côté, J., & Bynner, J. M. (2008). Changes in transition to adulthood in the UK and Canada: The role ofstructure and agency in emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(3), 251-263.
DeMatteo, D., Major, C., Block, B., Coates, R., Fearon, M., Goldberg, E., . . . Read, S. E. (1999).
Toronto street youth and HIV/AIDS: Prevalence, demographics, and risks. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 25(5), 358-366.

266

EM PLOYM ENT, EDUCATIO N & TR A IN IN G

Forchuk, C., Csiernik, R., & Jensen, E. (2011). Homelessness, housing and the experiences of mental
health consumer-survivors: Finding truths - creating change. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish: The birth of a prison. London: Penguin.
Fourcade-Gourinchas, M., & Babb, S. (2002). The rebirth of the liberal creed: Paths to neoliberalism
in four countries. American Journal of Sociology, 108(3), 553–79.
Gaetz, S. (2002). Street justice - The legal and justice issues of homeless youth in Toronto. Toronto:
Justice for Children and Youth.
Gaetz, S., & O’Grady, B. (2002). Making money: Exploring the economy of young homelessworkers. Work, Employment & Society, 16(3), 433-456.
Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., & Buccieri, K. (2010). Surviving crime and violence: Street youth andvictimization in Toronto. Toronto: Homeless Hub.
Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., & Vaillancourt, B. (1999). Making money - the Shout Clinic report on homelessyouth and employment. Toronto: Central Toronto Community Health Centres.
Gordon, T. (2004). The return of vagrancy laws and the politics of poverty in Canada. Canadian
Review of Social Policy, 54, 34-58.
Gordon, T. (2006). Cops, crime and capitalism: The law and order agenda in Canada. Halifax:
Fernwood.
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (Rev. ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
Green, M. B. (1993). Chronic exposure to violence and poverty: Interventions that work for youth.
Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 106-124.
Gwadz, M. V., Gostnell, K., Smolenski, C., Willis, B., Nish, D., Nolan, T. C., . . . Ritchie, A. S. (2009).
The initiation of homeless youth into the street economy. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 357-377.
Haley N., Roy, E., Leclerc, P., Boudreau, J. F., & Boivin, J. F. (2004). HIV risk profile of male street
youth involved in survival sex. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 80(6), 526-30.
Hammer, T. (2003). Introduction. In T. Hammer (Ed.), Youth unemployment and social exclusion in
Europe. Bristol: Policy Press.
Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1996). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life.
New York: Free Press Paperbacks.
Hurtubise, R., Roy, E., & Bellot, C. (2003). Youth homelessness: The street and work - fromexclusion to integration. In L. Roulleau-Berger (Ed.), Youth and work in the post-industrial cityof North America and Europe. Leiden: Brill Academic.
Jones, G. (2002). The youth divide – diverging paths into adulthood. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Karabanow, J. (2008). Getting off the street: Exploring the processes of young people’s street exits.
American Behavioural Scientist, 51(6), 772-788.
Karabanow, J., Carson, A., & Clement, P. (2010). Leaving the streets: Stories of Canadian youth. Black
Point: Fernwood.
Karabanow, J., Hughes, J., Ticknor, J., Kidd, S., & Patterson, D. (2010). The economics of being
young and poor: How homeless youth survive in neo-liberal times. Journal of Sociology andSocial Welfare, 37(4), 39-63.
Keenan, C., Maldonado, V., & O’Grady, B. (2006). Working the streets: An international
comparative analysis of income generation among street youth. Canadian Review of Social Policy,
58, 25-42.
Kidd, S. A. (2004). The walls were closing in, and we were trapped: A qualitative analysis of street
youth suicide. Youth & Society, 36(1), 30-55.
Kulik, D. M., Gaetz, S., Levy, A. S., Crowe, C., & Ford-Jones, E. L. (2011). Homeless youth’s
overwhelming health burden – a review of the literature. Pediatrics and Child Health, 16(6), 43-47.
Kus, B. (2006). Neoliberalism, institutional change and the welfare state: The case of
Britain and France. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 47(6), 488-525.
doi: 10.1177/0020715206070268
Lafer, G. (2002). The job training charade. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Lenz-Rashid, S. (2006). Employment experiences of homeless young adults: Are they different foryouth with a history of foster care? Children and Youth Services Review, 28(3), 235-239.
Lerman, R. L. (2000). Employment training programs for out-of-school youth: Past effects and lessons
for the future. In B. S. Burrows & C. T. King (Eds.), Improving the odds: Increasing the effectivenessof publicly funded training programs (pp. 185-208). Washington: The Urban Institute Press.

267

Y OU TH HOM ELESSN E SS IN CA N A D A

MacDonald, R. (1998). Youth, transitions and social exclusion: Some issue for youth research in the
UK. Journal of Youth Studies, 1(2), 163-176.
MacDonald, R. (2004). Missing school: Educational engagement, youth transitions, and social
exclusion. Youth & Society, 36(2), 143-162.
MacDonald, R. (2008). Disconnected youth? Social exclusion, the ‘underclass’ and economic
marginality. Social Work and Society, 6(2), 236-249.
Mandianipour, A. (1998). Social exclusion and space. In A. Mandianipour, G. Cars, & J. Allen(Eds.), Social exclusion in European cities (pp. 75-94). London: Jessica Kingsley.
McCay, E. (2009). Seeing the possibilities: The need for a mental health focus amongst street-involved youth.
Retrieved from Wellesley institute website: http://www.wellesleyinstitute.c om/publication/seeing-the-possibilities-the-need-for-a-mental-health-focus-amongst-street-involved-youth/
Murray, C. (1994). Underclass: The crisis deepens. London: IEA.
Murray, C., & Burns, T. (2012). Coming apart: The state of White America, 1960-2010. New York:
Crown Forum.
Navarro, V. (1998). Neoliberalism, “globalization,” unemployment, inequalities, and the welfare
state. International Journal of Health Services, 28(4), 607 – 682.
O’Grady, B., Bright, R., & Cohen, E. (1998). Sub-employment and street youths: An analysis of the
impact of squeegee cleaning on homeless youths. Security Journal, 11, 315-323.
O’Grady, B., & Gaetz, S. (2004). Homelessness, gender and income generation: the case of Toronto
street youth. Journal of Youth Studies, 7(4), 397-416.
O’Grady, B., Gaetz, S., & Buccieri, K. (2011). Can I see your ID? The policing of youth homelessness
in Toronto. Toronto: Homeless Hub.
Orr, L. L., Bloom, H. S., Bell, S. H., Doolittle, F., Lin, W., & Cave, G. (1996). Does training for the
disadvantaged work? Evidence from the national JTPA study. Washington: Urban Institute Press.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review ofSociology, 24, 1-24.
Robinson, J. L., & Baron, S. W. (2007). Employment training for street youth: A viable option?
Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 16(1), 33-57.
Roy, E., Boudreau, J. F., & Boivin, J. F. (2009). Hepatitis C virus incidence among young street-involved
IDUs in relation to injection experience. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 102(1-3), 158-161.
Salvation Army. (2011). “Canada speaks”: Exposing persistent myths about the 150,000 Canadians
living on the streets. Retrieved from http://salvationarmy.ca
Shier, M., Graham, J. R., & Jones, M. E. (2010). Social capital for vulnerable groups: Insight from
employed people experiencing homelessness. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 19(3-4),
129-153.
Shildrick, T., Blackman, S., & MacDonald, R. (2009). Young people, class and place. Journal ofYouth Studies, 12(5), 457-465.
Sibley, D. (1995). Geographies of exclusion. London: Routledge.
Standing, G. (2011). The precariat: The new dangerous class. New York: Bloomsbury.
Statistics Canada. (2008). Earnings and incomes of Canadians over the past quarter century,
2006 Census. (Catalogue no. 97-563-X). Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census­
recensement/2006/as-sa/97-563/index-eng.cfm
Tarasuk, V., Dachner, N., & Li, J. G. (2005). Homeless youth in Toronto are nutritionally vulnerable.
Journal of Nutrition, 135(8), 1926-1933.
Tarasuk, V., Dachner, N., Poland, B., & Gaetz, S. (2009). Food deprivation is integral to the ‘hand tomouth’ existence of homeless youth in Toronto. Public Health Nutrition, 12(9), 1437-1442.
Wellesley Institute. (2010). Precarious housing in Canada. Toronto: Author.

268