Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 88, Issue 6, pp 1175–1182 | Cite as

Cell Phone Use among Homeless Youth: Potential for New Health Interventions and Research

  • Eric RiceEmail author
  • Alex Lee
  • Sean Taitt


Cell phone use has become nearly ubiquitous among adolescents in the United States. Despite the potential for cell phones to facilitate intervention, research, and care for homeless youth, no data exists to date on cell phone use among this population. In 2009, a survey of cell phone use was conducted among a non-probability sample of 169 homeless youth in Los Angeles, CA. Levels of ownership and use, instrumental uses (connecting to case workers, employers) and patterns of connecting to various network types were assessed (family, home-based peers, street-based peers). Differences in socio-demographic characteristics and cell phone ownership were assessed via t test and chi-square statistics. Sixty-two percent of homeless youth own a cell phone; 40% have a working phone. Seventeen percent used their phone to call a case manager, 36% to call either a potential or current employer. Fifty-one percent of youth connected with home-based peers on the phone and 41% connected to parents. Cell phones present new opportunities for intervention research, connecting homeless youth to family and home-based peers who can be sources of social support in times of need. Moreover, cell phones provide researchers and providers with new avenues to maintain connections with these highly transient youth.


Mobile phone Cell phone Social media Adolescents Homeless Social network 


  1. 1.
    Ringwalt CL, Greene JM, Robertson M, et al. The prevalence of homelessness among adolescents in the United States. Am J Pub Heal. 1998; 32: 1325–1329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kipke MD, Montgomery S, Simon TR, et al. Substance abuse disorders among runaway and homeless youth. Subst Use Misuse. 1997; 32: 969–986.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whitbeck LB, Hoyt DR. Nowhere to Grow: Homeless and Runaway Adolescents and Their Families. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1999.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tyler KA, Whitbeck LB, Hoyt DR, et al. Predictions of self-reported sexually transmitted diseases among homeless and runaway adolescents. J Sex Res. 2000; 37: 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rice E, Milburn NG, Rotheram-Borus MJ, et al. The effects of peer group network properties on drug use among homeless youth. Am Behav Sci. 2005; 48: 1102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eyrich-Garg KM. Mobile phone technology: a new paradigm for the prevention, treatment, and research of the non-sheltered “Street” homeless? J Urban Health. 2010; 87: 365–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rice E, Monro W, Barman-Adhikari A, et al. Internet use, social networking, and homeless adolescents’ HIV/AIDS risk. J Adolesc Health. 2010; 47:610–613.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lenhart, A. Teens and mobile phones over the past 5 years: pew Internet looks back | Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Resea Cen Int & Am Life Proj. 2009.–Teens-and-Mobile-Phones-Data-Memo.aspx?r=1 Accessed August 23, 2010.
  9. 9.
    Auter PJ. Portable social groups: willingness to communicate, interpersonal communication gratifications, and cell phone use among young adults. Int J Mob Com. 2007; 5: 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Madell DE, Muncer SJ. Control over social interactions: an important reason for young people’s use of the Internet and mobile phone for communication? Cyberpsychol Behav. 2007; 10: 137–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pearson JC, Carmon A, Tobola C, et al. Motives for communication: why the millennial generation uses electronic devices. J Comm Spe Thea Ass N D. 2009; 22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thulin E, Vilhelmson B. Mobiles everywhere: youth, the mobile phone, and changes in everyday practices. J You Res. 2007; 2007: 15.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leung L. Stressful life events, motives for internet use, and social support among digital kids. CybPsyc Behav. 2007; 10: 204–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Walsh SP, White KM, Yong RM. Over-connected? A qualitative exploration of the relationship between Australian youth and their mobile phone. J Adoles. 2008; 32: 77–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pain R, Grundy S. So long as I take my mobile: mobile phones, urban life, and geographies of young people’s safety. In J Urb Reg Res. 2005; 29(4): 814–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wei R, Lo VH. Staying connected while on the move: cell phone use and social connectedness. N Med Soci. 2006; 8: 53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grunbaum JA, Kann L, Kinchen S, Ross J, Hawkins J, Lowry R, Harris WA, McManus T, Chyen D, Collins J. Youth risk behavior surveillance--United States, 2003. MMWR. Surveillance Summaries: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries/CDC 2004; 53(2): 1–96. Accessed May 10th, 2010.
  18. 18.
    Brener ND, Collins JL, Kann L, Warren CW, Williams BI. Reliability of the youth risk behavior survey questionnaire. Am J Epidemiol. 1995; 141(6): 575–580.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1996.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Beck AT, Epstein N, Brown G, Steer RA. An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989; 56(6): 893–89.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsemberis S, McHugo G, Williams V, Hanrahan P, Stefancic A. Measuring homelessness and residential stability: the residential time-line follow-back inventory. J Community Psychol. 2007; 35(1): 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Uchino BN, Cacioppo JT, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. The relationship between social support and physiological processes: a review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychol Bull. 1996; 119: 488–531.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mandell D, Muncer S. Back from the beach but hanging on the telephone? English adolescents’ attitudes and experiences of mobile phones and the internet. CybPscy Behav. 2004; 7: 359–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arnold EM, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Comparisons of prevention programs for homeless youth. Prev Sci. 2009; 10: 76–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rice E, Milburn N, Rotheram-Borus MJ. Pro-social and problematic social network influences on HIV/AIDS risk behaviours among newly homeless youth in los angeles. AIDS Care. 2007; 19: 697–704.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations