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?

Cigarette smoking and Ecuadorian adolescents: A cross-sectional survey and policy review

This study investigates the relationship between cigarette smoking and adolescents in Ecuador, South America. Using the Social Learning Theory as a basis, the cross-sectional survey focuses attention on such social influences as the smoking habits of family members and peers as well as, the role of cigarette advertisements. Actual use prevalence, access to cigarettes and knowledge and attitudes about smoking are also obtained.^ The survey was conducted in both urban and rural areas, with 50 schools in 40 different communities participating. Two thousand four hundred and fifty-seven adolescents aged 9 to 15 years completed a self-administered questionnaire. This part of the study was conducted in collaboration with the international health organization Amigos de las Americas (AMIGOS). Staff assigned to the AMIGOS Ecuador projects worked with local health and education officials to implement the cross-sectional survey in the field.^ The key informant survey and subsequent policy review were designed to illuminate the social, cultural and institutional environment for anti-smoking activities and interventions in Ecuador. Key individuals involved with this issue on both national and local levels were interviewed. A review of past legislative efforts and present anti-smoking laws was also conducted.^ The current smoking prevalence among the study population was 8.6 percent. Findings from the cross-sectional survey revealed significant positive associations between the smoking habits of siblings and peers and the smoking behavior of the adolescents surveyed. Significant age and gender differences were also found in association with several different variables.^ The policy review found an unfavorable environment for anti-smoking efforts. Several factors contribute to this including, most importantly, lack of funding and lack of public support. The present anti-smoking law is often vague and lacks important provisions, such as a prohibition on selling tobacco products to minors.^ Together, the two surveys provide comprehensive information for the purpose of designing smoking prevention interventions. Using the results from the two surveys, recommendations for intervention are proposed. ^

Environmental sustainability and the human element: Decision making in National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers and Practice Greenhealth subscribing institutions

Background. Various aspects of sustainability have taken root in the hospital environment; however, decisions to pursue sustainable practices within the framework of a master plan are not fully developed in National Cancer Institute (NCI) -designated cancer centers and subscribing institutions to the Practice Greenhealth (PGH) listserv.^ Methods. This cross sectional study was designed to identify the organizational characteristics each study group pursed to implement sustainability practices, describe the barriers they encountered and reasons behind their choices for undertaking certain sustainability practices. A web-based questionnaire was pilot tested, and then sent out to 64 NCI-designated cancer centers and 1638 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv.^ Results. Complete responses were received from 39 NCI-designated cancer centers and 58 subscribing institutions to the PGH listserv. NCI-designated cancer centers reported greater progress in integrating sustainability criteria into design and construction projects than hospitals of institutions subscribing to the PHG listserv (p-value = <0.05). Statistically significant differences were also identified between these two study groups in undertaking work life options, conducting energy usage assessments, developing energy conservation and optimization plans, implementing solid waste and hazardous waste minimization programs, using energy efficient vehicles and reporting sustainability progress to external stakeholders. NCI-designated cancer centers were further along in implementing these programs (p-value = <0.05). In comparing the self-identified NCI-designated cancer centers to centers that indicated they were both and NCI and PGH, the later had made greater progress in using their collective buying power to pursue sustainable purchasing practices within the medical community (p-value = <0.05). In both study groups, recycling programs were well developed.^ Conclusions. Employee involvement was viewed as the most important reason for both study groups to pursue recycling initiatives and incorporated environmental criteria into purchasing decisions. A written sustainability commitment did not readily translate into a high percentage that had developed a sustainability master plan. Coordination of sustainability programs through a designated sustainability professional was not being undertaken by a large number of institutions within each study group. This may be due to the current economic downturn or management's attention to the emerging health care legislation being debated in congress. ^ Lifecycle assessments, an element of a carbon footprint, are seen as emerging areas of opportunity for health care institutions that can be used to evaluate the total lifecycle costs of products and services.^