How Do We Measure Youth and Young Adult Homelessness? a Call for Epistemological and Methodological Complexity

Background and Purpose: In the United States, approximately 1-in-30 youth (ages 13-17) and 1-in-10 young adults (ages 18-25) experience homelessness every year. The Point-in-Time (PIT) Count reported an 8.9% increase in unaccompanied youth in 2024 in comparison to the prior year. Further, these numbers are likely an undercount, due to challenges in collecting accurate counts of youth and young adults experiencing homelessness. Because definitions of homelessness and data systems that track homelessness vary, quantitative estimates of youth homelessness differ widely. This paper seeks to explore the different epistemological assumptions that shape how youth and young adult homelessness are measured. We aim to challenge the technical approach to measurement and, instead, offer an approach based on understanding how we come to know, define, and make visible youth and young adult homelessness.

Methods: This study used a mixed-methods approach to explore measurement of homelessness through a needs assessment of youth and young adult homelessness in Utah. Quantitatively, we used data from the Utah Homelessness Management Information System (HMIS) and the annual Point in Time (PIT) Count to identify how many youth and young adults were reported as homeless in Utah between 2015-2024. Qualitatively, we conducted focus groups with youth, young adults, and service providers (n = 48) to explore how reported homelessness rates and trends aligned or diverged from perceptions, observations, and lived experiences. We compared these data sources to identify key similarities and differences between reports.

Results: We found that quantitative and qualitative reports of homelessness prevalence differed considerably – with quantitative sources reporting consistently low prevalence rates in comparison to qualitative perceptions. Many of these discrepancies were largely related to differing definitions of homelessness (e.g., whether youth living doubled up homelessness ‘counts’) and because “invisible” homelessness (e.g., youth staying on public lands, disconnected from services)is not captured by formal counts.

Conclusions and Implications: Measuring youth and young adult homelessness requires methodological and epistemological complexity. Current definitions of homelessness, which prioritize unsheltered or temporarily sheltered homelessness, serve as the basis for data collected through the HMIS and PIT count, and are used both within states and nationally to measure homelessness. However, both these definitions and available measurement tools fail to represent the experiences of those who are doubled up, living outside of visible areas, and/or disconnected from service systems. Our findings suggest that defining homelessness is a complex epistemological act – requiring expansiveness alongside pragmatism. Measurement of homelessness, then, requires inclusion of multiple methods that go beyond conventional quantitative ‘counts.’ Further research and policy advocacy should explore and advocate for increased inclusion of mixed methods in formal homelessness measurement endeavors.