Runaway and Throwaway Youth: Time for Policy Changes and Public Responsibility

The traditional American dream of owning a home, obtaining a college education, and working at a good, paying job is only that, a dream, for scores of homeless youth in America today. There is a growing street population of young people who have been thrown out of their homes by their caretakers or their families, and who face life-threatening situations each day. For these youth, the furthest thing in their lives is reaching the so-called “American Dream;” and their most immediate need is survival, simply living out the day in front of them. They have few options that lead to a decent and safe living environment. Their age, lack of work experience, and absence of a high school diploma make it most difficult to find a job. As a result, they turn to other means for survival; runaways and throwaways are most vulnerable to falling prey to the sex trade, selling drugs, or being lured into human trafficking, and some steal or panhandle. Street youth end up spending their nights in bus stations or finding a room in an abandoned building or an empty stairwell to sleep. Attempting to identify a specific number of homeless youth is difficult at best, but what is even more perplexing is our continued inability to effectively protect our children. We are left with a basic question framed by the fundamental tenets of justice: what is a community’s responsibility to its youth who, for whatever reason, end up living on the streets or in unsafe, abusive environments? The purpose of this paper is to briefly outline the characteristics of homeless youth, in particular differentiating between throwaways and runaways; explore the current federal response to homeless youth; and finally, address the nagging question that swirls around all children: can we aggressively aspire to be a community where every child is healthy and safe, and able to realize his or her fullest potential?

Ultraviolet radiation intensity predicts the relative distribution of dermatomyositis and anti-Mi-2 autoantibodies in women.

OBJECTIVE: Because studies suggest that ultraviolet (UV) radiation modulates the myositis phenotype and Mi-2 autoantigen expression, we conducted a retrospective investigation to determine whether UV radiation may influence the relative prevalence of dermatomyositis and anti-Mi-2 autoantibodies in the US. METHODS: We assessed the relationship between surface UV radiation intensity in the state of residence at the time of onset with the relative prevalence of dermatomyositis and myositis autoantibodies in 380 patients with myositis from referral centers in the US. Myositis autoantibodies were detected by validated immunoprecipitation assays. Surface UV radiation intensity was estimated from UV Index data collected by the US National Weather Service. RESULTS: UV radiation intensity was associated with the relative proportion of patients with dermatomyositis (odds ratio [OR] 2.3, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.9-5.8) and with the proportion of patients expressing anti-Mi-2 autoantibodies (OR 6.0, 95% CI 1.1-34.1). Modeling of these data showed that these associations were confined to women (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.3-11.0 and OR 17.3, 95% CI 1.8-162.4, respectively) and suggests that sex influences the effects of UV radiation on autoimmune disorders. Significant associations were not observed in men, nor were UV radiation levels related to the presence of antisynthetase or anti-signal recognition particle autoantibodies. CONCLUSION: This first study of the distribution of myositis phenotypes and UV radiation exposure in the US showed that UV radiation may modulate the clinical and immunologic expression of autoimmune disease in women. Further investigation of the mechanisms by which these effects are produced may provide insights into pathogenesis and suggest therapeutic or preventative strategies.