170 - Housing Insecurity Among Transition Age Youth After Incarceration (TAY): Risk Factors and Implications for Interventions

Publication Number: 170.5399

Kathryn Leifheit, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Taylor Reed, Luskin School of Public Affairs at the University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States; Christopher Bondoc, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Walnut, CA, United States; Laura S. Abrams, University of California, Los Angeles, Culver City, CA, United States; Elizabeth Barnert, University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, United States

Background: Housing insecurity can interfere with healthy reentry for transition age youth (TAY; ages 18-25) returning to the community from jail, yet limited empirical data have identified risk factors for housing insecurity in this population.

Objective: We explored relationships between baseline demographic, social, health, and structural factors with housing insecurity in the subsequent 6 months for formerly incarcerated TAY.

Design/Methods: We surveyed young adults ages 18-25 reentering society from Los Angeles County jails. Baseline variables measured demographic, social (i.e., maternal education, employment, family structure, social network), health (physical, mental, substance use), and structural factors (experiences with discrimination, criminal legal system, housing). Discrimination was measured as an affirmative response to “you have often been treated badly because of race, sexual orientation, birthplace, disability, or religion.” Housing status was collected at baseline and follow-up surveys at 2-, 4-, and 6-months from April 2021-Dec 2022. Using non-parametric tests, we compared baseline characteristics of TAY who experienced housing insecurity during follow-up to those who never experienced housing insecurity. We used multivariable regression to identify, among these baseline characteristics, independent predictors of housing insecurity.

Results: Our sample included 85 participants; 54% were Hispanic and 29% were non-Hispanic Black. 33% ever reported housing insecurity. Compared to TAY who were housing secure, TAY who were housing insecure had lower maternal education (54 vs. 75% completing high school, p=0.049), were more likely to have experienced discrimination (57 vs. 16%, p< 0.001), had more baseline arrests (79 vs. 60% ≥2, p=0.028) and convictions (63% vs 25% ≥2, p=0.002), and were more likely to have been unhoused prior to incarceration (75% vs. 44%, p=0.010). The two groups did not differ significantly on the other demographic, social, and health factors. In multivariable models, discrimination experiences were associated with a 40 percentage-point increase in risk of housing insecurity (95%CI 14-66), and multiple convictions (vs. zero) were associated with a 42 percentage-point increase (95%CI 5-80).

Conclusion(s): The strongest risk factors for housing insecurity among TAY after incarceration were discrimination experiences and multiple convictions. Findings suggest that structural interventions are needed to address upstream factors like discrimination and incarceration to prevent housing insecurity among TAY.

able 1: Univariate associations between baseline factors and housing insecurity at follow-up among Transition-Aged Youth during reentry, Los Angeles, CA June 2020 – May 2021 (N=85)
*Indicates participant reported housing insecurity at baseline, 2 months, 4 months, or 6 months.
** Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables, Wilcoxon rank-sum for continuous


Table 2: Multivariable model of risk factors for housing insecurity among Transition-Aged Youth during reentry, Los Angeles, CA June 2020 – May 2021 (N=85)
Note: In linear probability regressions, coefficients should be interpreted as absolute, percentage-point change in probability of experiencing housing insecurity, in each category relative to its reference.