Fredrik Mansfield

LSJ 401

Every day I head to work on a state of emergency. Only today’s state of emergency is

named John*1, and he is doing rather well considering. John simply came by the office to do

some laundry, a free service that Street Youth Ministries (SYM) provides the youth it serves.

Working in street youth2 outreach in a city where homelessness has been classified as a “state of

emergency” bears with it a certain heightened concern, a paternalistic approach towards the

unhoused and their needs. In my experience at SYM, this posture is the furthest from what the

unhoused need. The youth that I work with in my internship hold a strong sense of distrust

toward any individual or institution which imposes its authority over their own autonomy.

Seattle’s policies and practices toward the unhoused, in particular the young adults, must draw

upon the voices and perspectives of the unhoused in order to successfully address the concern of

homelessness in the city.

Street Youth Ministries, where I have held my internship this summer, is a drop-in center

for youth in the University District who are either unhoused or have unstable housing

circumstances. As such, the organization is not involved with policy implementation or

amending. Rather, the drop-in center provides services and resources such as food, clothing,

laundry washing, showers, and bus tickets. With a staff of four, SYM also has an activities

1
All names used in this paper are pseudonyms to protect and respect the identity of the street youth I
work with. Their names will be marked with an asterisk to signify this.
2
For the purposes of this paper, I use the terms “street youth” and “unhoused youth” interchangeably to
refer to the individual youth living on the street, and the term “homelessness” to refer to the broader social
concern. The reason I use these terms is that “street youth” is their preferred term, and “unhoused” refers
explicitly to their lack of housing and the responsibility the government has in ensuring everyone access
to housing, instead of implying a “lesser” existence or suggesting they are without any form of home,
which ignores how the streets and other places of temporary residency can be homes and have
community.
coordinator who organizes events for the involved youth, as well as a case manager who works

with the youth to find them housing and employment. SYM is part of a network of organizations

involved in outreach for unhoused youth in the University District. While each organization is

individual, they work symbiotically to address all needs and refer youth to other organizations so

as to not overlap needlessly in provided service. ROOTS, for example, is a temporary shelter for

unhoused youth, providing a bed for youth to claim on a daily basis. Other organizations also

offer educational services and job training programs. The presence of many separate yet

interdependent organizations in the University District allows SYM to focus their services and

invest in building relationships with the youth.

As an organization, Street Youth Ministries sees its mission as being individually and

relationally focused. The goal of forming relationships with the involved youth gives direction to

a service that can otherwise feel stagnant. A sense of stagnancy can occur when the services of

an outreach organization seem to be doing nothing to confront and address the systemic issue. By

investing into the lives of the youth, staff and volunteers can learn the stories and struggles of the

youth and provide emotional support. Relationship building is central to the purpose of SYM, as

it offers a counter narrative to the negative image of authority unhoused youth often hold. By

breaking from the unforgiving and critical narrative of authority (such as police exercising their

power, of which unhoused youth often express their ire), SYM staff and volunteers can make

genuine connections with the youth and offer what non-relational authority can never offer: A

voice.

The relational focus of SYM is a deep component of justice. Specifically, the validating

and relational connection with a marginalized and stigmatized demographic is restorative justice.

Restorative justice is typically understood as a criminal justice diversion program to avoid

retributive sentencing and focus on restoring the community. However, restoration of

community, the essence of restorative justice, is necessary not only for the communities of

people convicted of crimes, but of all communities lacking unity. When the unhoused are

regarded as not being members of the community, the entire community suffers. Mutual

bitterness divides the housed and the unhoused, and stigma is exacerbated. I have witnessed this

prominently in the University District, where housed pedestrians go out of their way to not walk

by any street youth. Street youth feel this judgment, and have their own methods of retaliation.

One young man, Tyson*, sneaks up behind people and yells loudly to terrify them. He comes

across as malicious, but as I have gotten to know him I have found that he is in fact a very

thoughtful young man. The reason he has shown me this side of himself is because I proved to

him that I care, by listening to him and engaging him with the respect due a fellow human being.

People who have been consistently avoided and judged are in need of a listening ear, someone to

affirm that their voice is worth being heard. Letting them voice their struggles, their experiences,

and their opinions is an form of restorative justice. Relationships restore individual worth, and

they can bring together a community that was once deeply divided.

The success of the goal of forming relationships with the youth is as unpredictable as the

youth themselves. Some youth are comfortable interacting with staff and volunteers, and

willingly share about their lives and endeavors. Others are staunchly against anyone outside of

their trusted circle of friends and family, and keep up firm barriers. As difficult as this makes it

for myself and the SYM team to engage with them, I have come to truly understand this mindset.

Life on the streets of the University District – or anywhere, for that matter – is filled with risk.

Almost every day I work, I talk with someone who has had something stolen from them. Theft is

a common occurrence on the streets, because the benefit of taking someone’s belongings is high,
and there are no safe places for the street youth to store their belongings. As a result, fear and

stress are consistently experienced by many street youth. Risks go even further than theft, too.

On the night of August 16th, I spoke with two youth who expressed fearfully that they might be

killed that night. As horrifying as such a fear may be, there is little we as the SYM team can do

to provide support beyond referring them to shelter options for the night. When the level of risk

causes the fear, paranoia, and stress I have witnessed in countless street youth, it comes as no

surprise to me that many have no interest in engaging in conversation with anyone outside of

their trusted circle.

The distrust and paranoia that I witness often in the street youth I work with is largely

correlated with trauma. The ever-present risks of living on the streets contribute to the

prevalence of trauma in unhoused youth. Many unhoused youth have experienced abuse or

rejection in their family and fled their previous housing circumstances. Furthermore, there is a

distinct correlation between trauma and perpetual homelessness, the inability or lack of desire to

secure stable housing. The issue of trauma in street youth must be central to the conversation of

ending homelessness, as it plays a crucial role in their experience and in their recovery. Holly H.

McManus and Sally Thompson published an article in 2008 describing the significant role

trauma plays in homelessness. In their article, McManus and Thompson assert the harmful

impacts trauma can have on unhoused youth without proper support systems. They postulate that

policy and practice to address the concerns of youth homelessness must be “culturally

competent,” exhibiting respect for the youth and their distinct culture, and “incorporat[ing] their

unique perspectives” into the efforts made to address their homelessness (McManus 2008). Their

work dissects the nature of trauma and the needs of youth to retain their individuality and

autonomy in their interactions with service providers. However, the article fails to highlight the
deeply held distrust toward authority. For many unhoused youth I have worked with, distrust of

authority has valid and deeply held roots. For many of the street youth I work with, the police are

vehemently abhorred. In their experiences, the police have frequently demanded them, often

forcefully, to move off of the private property where they were staying for the night. While such

a stay is not legal, they repeatedly find themselves with no better option; ROOTS, the most

convenient nightly shelter, fills up quickly and leaves many youth without a legal place to sleep.

The unsympathetic harshness the youth experience from the police only further fuels their hatred

and distrust of authority. I have heard many stories of store owners casting used dish water at the

unhoused youth sleeping outside of their store. From all of these experiences and more, many

unhoused youth develop a narrative of antagonism for authority, and the respectful approaches

toward street youth outreach that McManus and Thompson describe will be unsuccessful if the

youth’s deep-seated distrust cannot be relinquished. McManus and Thompson do clarify that

“transitioning off the streets is a gradual process,” one in which safe environments can be

fostered and consistent support can lead to eventual healing (McManus 2008). However, an

essential component missing from the solution proposed by McManus and Thompson is the

importance of choice. The youth need to make the initial choice to receive the support provided

by such services, to give them the chance to prove their respectful approach.

The readiness for help is thoroughly explicated by Nancy R. Williams et al. in an article

titled, “From Trauma to Resiliency: Lessons from Former Runaway and Homeless Youth.” In

their case study research, Williams et al. interview five formerly unhoused youth and discover

the importance of a willingness of street youth to receive help in order to attain stability long-

term. While trusted circles of family and friends offer the most initial relief from trauma-induced

paranoia, it was in “allow[ing] professional helpers to intervene” that the unhoused youth were
able to progress toward housing stability (Williams 2001). Although the size of their sample pool

was statistically insignificant to make a conclusive claim, these findings reflect a pattern I have

observed at SYM as well. While my internship with SYM has only been for the summer, I have

volunteered there the past two years and have been able to observe a stable trend. The youth who

engage with volunteers and staff during drop-in are consistently the ones who are able to find

housing and employment, whereas the cynical youth continue to come to drop-in without having

progressed toward self-sustainability. The willingness to put trust into the service providers is a

decision made by every unhoused youth I have witnessed successfully overcome homelessness.

This decision is certainly dependent on the service providers’ ability to create a safe, respectful,

and validating environment, but the decision itself is ultimately in the hands of the youth. As

such, services should never be imposed upon the unhoused youth. Their autonomy in choosing to

reach out for support is essential in their successful transition into stability.

This entire process of deliberate and respectful service to the unhoused is predominantly

ignored in the shaping of policy. The city of Seattle has been guilty of such disregard. Barbara

Poppe, the “homelessness expert” hired by Seattle to advise the city on how to address the “state

of emergency” of homelessness, condemned the presence of homeless encampments in Seattle

without ever visiting one (“Othello”). Decision-making regarding homelessness is far too often

executed by the policy makers without ever consulting those directly affected by such policies.

Consequently, unhoused youth are stigmatized under Mayor Murray’s “state of emergency” as a

problem, and they are frequently treated as delinquents. I have heard many stories from street

youth about their negative stigmatization from law enforcement. A young man named Barry*

had a conflict with several other street youth, and they took to the streets fighting. Because of

their volume and use of physical force against one another, they had the police called on them.
Instead of being firmly reprimanded, though, the police pulled out their guns and yelled for all of

the street youth to lie down on the ground. Barry was the only one arrested, but the others have

not been quiet about their bitterness toward the police in this circumstance. Another story

involved a young woman, Maxine*, and her children. One night she entrusted her children to a

friend of hers, who passed the kids on to another young woman, Darnelle*, without her consent.

Concerned and confused as to what to do, Darnelle takes the children to ROOTS and asks staff

for help. They call the police, and the police come and take the children to CPS without

attempting to locate Maxine or otherwise resolve the issue. For Maxine, the loss of her kids has

further confirmed to her that neither peers nor authority can be trusted. These stories serve to

illustrate the stigmatization that is internalized by their encounters with law enforcement. These

stories are not commentary on an inability of the police to do their job; rather, I wish to use these

stories to show the perspective of the street youth in such situations, and how their perspective is

relevant to their behavior and their distrust of authority.

The paternalism that service providers often embody also manifests itself in less

aggressive interactions. New Horizons, a drop-in center for street youth in the Belltown area,

organized a Seattle-wide “Voices of Youth Count,” which entailed street youth being paid $15/hr

to go around town tracking the presence of the city’s street youth and interviewing them to learn

about their habitual whereabouts. Many street youth opposed this event, under the mindset that it

threatened their freedom. “Why should they need to know where we are?” I have heard from

many of the street youth with whom I have discussed this. An organized count feels in their

minds more like spying than genuine concern about identifying and understanding the need for

which New Horizons wishes to provide. The tension around this event is part of a greater
structure of policy and action planning without the voices of the street youth being heard. This

naturally only further perpetuates their distrust of authority.

The distrust of authority is present in the attitudes of many street youth and dictates much

of their behavior. Because of this, government-implemented programs and policing practices

have been and will continue to fail to effectively address the problem of youth homelessness.

What is needed, as articulated by McManus and Thompson, are service providers who provide

an atmosphere of respect and understanding for the street youth to feel safe and understood.

Coupled with this is the need for the service to never be imposed upon youth, but rather to be

available when they make the individual choice to seek support. SYM provides the synthesis of

both of the aforementioned needs. As a drop-in center, SYM provides open doors to the

community of unhoused youth in the University District, offering services and resources they can

individually choose. The drop-in center is unlike other many other services because it is not goal-

oriented; there is no quota of how many youth must find housing every month. Rather, SYM is

relationally focused, emphasizing that staff and volunteers are coming into their space rather than

the reverse. This ensures that the drop-in remains a space where street youth can claim as their

own and find identity. In doing so, SYM becomes an open and empowering community space

with limited rules that only serve to foster the safety and respect of all attendees of the drop-in.

McManus and Thompson affirm the significance of drop-in centers as resources where street

youth can find receiving services as “a positive experience, rather than a capitulation of their

autonomy and control” (McManus 2008). Regarding unhoused outreach services positively is

essential in the ideal progression of street youth toward seeking help.

Fitting myself into the relational and empowering environment of SYM has been

educational and rewarding in many ways. As an intern at SYM, my role was to learn how a non-
profit operates and to provide support in fulfilling the mission of SYM. In practice, I spent my

time organizing supplies and mail (as well as other behind the scenes work), helping run the

drop-in center, and forming relationships with youth. The menial office tasks were not

glamorous, but they helped me understand the vast list of details that must be considered in

operating a successful and sustainable non-profit. My time in the office also made me privy to

the vital institutional circumstances that factored into SYM’s ability to fulfill its mission. The

continual dependence of the organization on grants, for example, sheds light on how uncertain

the future is for many non-profits. Funding can be inconsistent for organizations that depend on

donations and grants. Currently, the level of funding has been below the desirable support for

other street youth outreach organizations to sustain themselves or grow in accordance with the

growing population of street youth in the University District. Despite the increased funding for

reducing homelessness in Seattle as part of the “state of emergency” address, organizations like

SYM have not been beneficiaries of state funds. As a result, there is a tangible strain that

influences SYM’s organizational atmosphere. The lack of funding for other organizations that

necessitated staff cuts has also been a consistent conversation at SYM, calling into question the

viability of hiring another staff worker to fill some of the case management need previously

covered by other agencies.

Stepping into leadership at the drop-in was perhaps the most anticipated facet of my

internship. Having volunteered weekly with SYM the last two years, taking the role of staff

during drop-in was an enticing opportunity. The transition into such leadership was not

immediate, but instead happened gradually over my time at the internship. Filling the staff role at

drop-in allowed the other staff at SYM to have less nights they themselves needed to fill over the

summer; it also provides them with a back-up staff in the upcoming years, should one of them
need to cancel on their drop-in commitment. As a staff of four (three of whom actually run the

drop-in), the demands of the drop-in, the administrative components, and the youth can be

overwhelming and taxing. Having the flexibility to delegate work to a qualified volunteer can

help reduce the sometimes overbearing stress.

All of my experiences this summer have led me to understand much more fully what is

required of a non-profit organization, particularly one in outreach to the unhoused. The stress of

sustaining funding, staying on top of administrative tasks, and engaging with a frequently

traumatized population presents great challenges. Having a small staff, as most local outreach

organizations do, makes everything even more challenging. But the work that SYM does in the

University District is a necessary counter narrative to the perpetual reputation of authority in the

street youth community. As a drop-in center, SYM provides a place where street youth can let

down their guard, engage with their peers, and form relationships with unimposing authority

figures. This unforceful posture is essential to the mission of Street Youth Ministries: To bring

hope and healing to the lives of street youth and to their community through relationships. This

reconciliation of street youth and authority is a gentle, organic process that must recognize the

significance of giving youth their own voice. Street youth must be heard, validated, and listened

to in the process of systematically addressing youth homelessness in the University District and

beyond. Only then can they be involved in their own recovery and make the choice to accept

help.

Every day I head to work with an amazing community of lively, resilient people. Today’s

friend is named John*, and I smile and ask him how his day is going as he loads his clothing into

the laundry machine. “Things are looking up,” he says. “”I’m optimistic.”
 Works Cited

Mcmanus, Holly H., and Sanna J. Thompson. "Trauma Among Unaccompanied Homeless Youth:

The Integration of Street Culture into a Model of Intervention." Journal of Aggression,

Maltreatment & Trauma 16.1 (2008): 92-109. Web.

"Othello Village Tent City Opens." LIHI.org. Low Income Housing Institute, 08 Mar. 2016. Web. 15

Aug. 2016.

Williams, Nancy R., Elizabeth W. Lindsey, P. David Kurtz, and Sara Jarvis. "From Trauma to

Resiliency: Lessons from Former Runaway and Homeless Youth." Journal of Youth Studies

4.2 (2001): 233-53. Web.