Evidence Rating for Outcomes
Family Functioning | Family functioning |
Drugs & Substance Abuse | Alcohol |
Mental Health & Behavioral Health | Internalizing behavior |
Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types |
Mental Health & Behavioral Health | Psychological functioning |
Date:
Interventions that aim to improve the situation of street-connected children and young people. The practice is rated Effective for family functioning, but No Effects for alcohol use, depression levels, delinquent behaviors, and internalizing behaviors.
Practice Goals/Target Population
Street-connected youths are children, adolescents, and young adults up to age 24 who are living and working on the streets. There are varying definitions of street-connected youth. Some youths may return home to their families at night, while others may stay in hostels or homeless shelters (Coren et al. 2013). This group also includes children who are stateless or migrating, as well as those with or without families. Further, this group may overlap with runaways, homeless youths, youths who have been trafficked, those who have been subjected to child labor, those who live in institutions, and children who live in slums, squatter settlements, or hostels. Street-connected children are not a homogenous group; instead, girls and young women experience different risks from what boys and young men do. Further, defining features of street-connected children and young people is their resilience, agency, citizenship, decision-making, and need for participation rarely than solely protection.
The overall goals of these interventions are to 1) reduce the risks that coincide with living and working on the street, such as early sexual activity and substance misuse; 2) promote inclusion and reintegration into society; 3) increase literacy and numeracy; 4) promote access to education, training, and employment opportunities; and 5) promote a healthier lifestyle, including mental health and self-esteem (Coren et al. 2013).
Practice Components
Interventions targeting street-connected youths generally focus on inclusion, reintegration, and harm-reduction strategies that serve children and young people while they are living on, or closely connected to, the streets. Inclusion, as defined by the World Health Organization, is action aimed at 1) promoting full and equal inclusion in social systems, 2) providing universal access to socially acceptable living standards as defined by the International Labor Organization, 3) promoting and respecting cultural diversity, and 4) addressing unequal inclusion and extreme exclusion (Coren et al. 2013). Reintegration occurs when children and young people enter a residential or educational environment that has the potential to provide them with elements of physical safety, medical care, nutrition, counseling, education, inclusion in social and economic opportunities, and room for recreation and personal and spiritual growth that may promote long-term positive life chances. Harm reduction is defined as interventions aimed at reducing the harms associated with the lifestyles of street-connected youth, such as early or risky sexual activity and substance use. These therapy-based strategies often focus on specific problems generally found among street connected youth. For instance, interventions aiming to improve the situation of street-connected children and young people may include educational projects, vocational training, HIV prevention and/or family therapeutic programs. Educational projects provide street-connected youth access to academic instruction, including the opportunity to sit for basic examinations and obtain certifications (such as a high school diploma). Vocational programs offer youth training to obtain more work-related skills. HIV prevention programs seek to increase youths’ knowledge about HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, while also targeting various risk factors such as unprotected sex, sex with multiple partners, and the sharing of injecting equipment. Family therapeutic programs are therapy-based programs targeting both the youths and their families, with an emphasis on family functioning, family cohesion, and family conflict.
These types of interventions are often single projects, drop-in centers, or peer education interventions. Interventions can occur within the framework of a formal schooling system or in a nonformal setting. Notably, while engaging in an intervention, children may still be living and working on the streets. It may take years for children to be fully reintegrated or included in mainstream society.
|
Family Functioning | Family functioning
Coren and colleagues (2013) aggregated data from three studies examining the effect of interventions targeting street-connected youths in their ability to improve family cohesion. At the 3-month analysis, the study authors found the interventions were associated with a significant increase in family cohesion (mean difference=0.88). This indicates that these interventions had a strong impact on family cohesion. However, similar to the other outcomes, the results should be taken with caution given the limited number of studies. |
|
Drugs & Substance Abuse | Alcohol
Coren and colleagues (2013) aggregated data from two studies that examined the effects of interventions targeting street-connected youths on their ability to promote safer or reduced substance use. At the 3-month analysis, the authors found that the interventions were not associated with a change in the number of days of reported alcohol use in the last month (mean difference =1.1). Such results should be interpreted with caution, however, given that only two studies were included in the analysis. |
|
Mental Health & Behavioral Health | Internalizing behavior
Coren and colleagues (2013) aggregated data from two studies that examined the impact of interventions targeting street-connected youth on depression levels. At the 6-month analysis, the study authors did not find a change in depression levels for the studies participants (mean difference=.43). Again, such results should be taken with caution given that only two studies were included in the analysis. |
|
Crime & Delinquency | Multiple crime/offense types
Coren and colleagues (2013) aggregated data from two studies examining the effect of interventions targeting street-connected youths on their ability to impact delinquent behaviors. The study authors did not find that the interventions were associated with a change in delinquent behaviors at the 12-month analysis (mean difference= .16). These results should be interpreted with caution, because only two studies were included in the analysis. |
|
Mental Health & Behavioral Health | Psychological functioning
Coren and colleagues (2013) aggregated data from two studies examining the effect of interventions targeting street-connected youths on their ability to improve the psychological functioning of the studiesâ participants, as measured by internalizing behaviors. At the 6-month analysis, there was no change in internalizing behaviors associated with the interventions (mean difference= â1.14). Such results should be taken with caution, given the limited number of studies included in the meta-analysis. |
Literature Coverage Dates | Number of Studies | Number of Study Participants | |
---|---|---|---|
Meta Analysis 1 | 1985-2012 | 11 | 1142 |
Coren and colleagues (2013) reviewed studies focusing on street-connected children and young people up to age 24, regardless of location, reason for their street connectedness, or gender. Potential participants included street-connected children and young people, their families and others who take care of them, professionals working with children, young people and their families, the police, and employers. The researchers searched electronic bibliographic databases for eligible empirical studies and screened items suggested by experts, advisory group members, and authors of included studies, including companion studies. Both published and unpublished reports were included in the search, which was not limited to the English language and was international in scope.
The original search yielded 15,995 unique references. Following screening and mapping by two researchers, 11 studies were eligible for review. These 11 studies included 1,142 participants from 8 randomized control studies, 2 controlled before-and-after trials, and 1 quasi-experimental design. All included studies required a comparator, which was defined as groups who did not receive an intervention, groups who received standard practice interventions, or groups who received a different type of intervention. Although qualitative data was not included in the analysis, qualitative data was used to illuminate the impact of context and also mechanism of change.
A random-effects model analysis of standardized mean difference was used to measure the impact of the interventions on the following outcomes: safer or reduced substance use, depression, internalizing behavior, social functioning, and family functioning. Substance abuse was measured using a Time-Limited-Back interview and a variation of the Time-Limited-Back interview, Form 90, both of which measured the amount of substance use within the specified period. Reduced sharing of injection equipment was also measured within this outcome. Depression was measured using the Beck Depression Index and the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale. Internalizing behaviors was measured using the Youth Self-Report. Social function was measured by the Youth Self-Report, the DSM–IV criteria, and the National Youth Survey Delinquency Scale, all of which measured youths’ delinquent behaviors. Finally, family functioning was measured using the Family Environment Scale, which measured family cohesion.
These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Coren, Esther, Rosa Hossain, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Mirella MS Veras, Kabita Chakraborty, Holly Harris, and Anne J. Martin. 2013. Interventions for Promoting Reintegration and Reducing Harmful Behavior and Lifestyles in Street-Connected Children and Young People. The Campbell Collaboration.
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/206/These sources were used in the development of the practice profile:
Ennew, Judith. 2000. Street and Working Children: A Guide to Planning. London, England: Save the Children.
West, Andrew. 2003. At the Margins: Street Children in Asia and the Pacific. Washington, D.C.: Asian Development Bank.
http://www.adb.org/publications/margins-street-children-asia-and-pacificFollowing are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
Age: 3 - 23
Gender: Male, Female
Practice Type: Academic Skills Enhancement, Aftercare/Reentry, Afterschool/Recreation, Family Therapy, Individual Therapy, Residential Treatment Center, Shelter Care, Truancy Prevention
Unit of Analysis: Persons