|
|
 |
Places to Go, Places to Grow: Youth Shelters in the 21st Century
By Maria Leebeek, Donna Curtis, Shelley Parkin, Michael Coffey, Narelle Clay
Places to Go, Places to Grow: Youth Shelters in the 21st Century
By Maria Leebeek, Donna Curtis, Shelley Parkin, Michael Coffey, Narelle Clay
Introduction to NYCH
The National Youth Coalition for Housing (NYCH) was established in 1982. NYCH focuses on youth homelessness and housing issues and it represents the nine State/Territory Youth housing and SAAP sectors. NYCH is one of three founding members of the Australian Federation of Homelessness Organisations (AFHO).
The objects of NYCH Constitution are (1):
· To provide a national forum for non-government organisations concerned with the provision of, co-ordination of, and activities related to youth housing at State and Territory levels;
· To make representation to, and where appropriate, co-operate with governments and other relevant organisations at Local, State, Federal and International levels in the pursuit of these objects;
· To co-ordinate action around the issues of youth and housing, and other related issues;
· To undertake research related to youth housing
· To facilitate the development of a national youth housing policy
History of the youth shelter movement
For many years, before the introduction of SAAP in 1985, the Commonwealth and State governments and community organisations had all been involved in running and/or funding services for young people who were homeless.
The Joint Commonwealth and State funding for youth refuges began in 1979 under the Youth Services Scheme which commenced as a pilot to run until 1983. The then Department of Social Security had identified the ‘’Youth Shelter” as a model for support programs for young people up to the age of 18 and with some flexibility to accommodation young people above that age. The emergency accommodation that was provided in residential properties, offered stays of up to 3 months. These services also provided support by way of counselling and information services for children and their parents; supervision of young people in accommodation; rent/lease guarantees to landlords and subsidies. (2)
The funding was primarily made available for community based agencies, however some services were delivered by state or local government where no suitable agency existed and the grants for these service were recurrent. However, they did not meet the capital costs which were associated with the program apart from some minor modifications. Some additional funding was also provided by State/Territory Governments.
During the early 80’s it was determined that services provided had been developed in an ad hoc manner and varied greatly in quality, scope and approach. Services were characterised by inadequate funding, poor planning and co-ordination, restrictive program guidelines and complicated administrative arrangements. In 1982 a review of services recommended the various programs be integrated into a single cost-shared initiative administered by the States/Territories, thus the creation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP).
The first models used for SAAP were carried over from the former programs and tended to be residential and were often centred around large hostels or refuge and shelter accommodation. When SAAP I was reviewed in 1987 it was found that the Program was an effective and positive program but that it could be extended to be more than a crisis short term response. From here SAAP began to evolve into what it is today.
Over the last decade, within the last two iterations of SAAP (3) there has been a move towards more flexible models that respond more effectively to the wide range of client needs and their differing situations. The development of medium and long term services have complemented the crisis initiatives to attempt to provide a more responsive and flexible continuum of care for young people from crisis to independence. Youth refuges still have a vital part to play within this continuum of care.
In the early to mid 1990’s a range of other systems issues and changes began to impact on young people and the youth accommodation and housing system. In particular the shrinking of substitute or out of home care and the closure of State/Territory owned and managed facilities such as Renwick, Ormond and Minali in NSW led to an increase of young people who primarily because of the age and situation should have been within the State/Territory Care system being accommodated in the SAAP system. This shifted the focus for some crisis services from ‘relationship’ based models to duty of care frameworks, due to the age and needs of a younger client group.
From youth refuges to crisis accommodation services
The youth SAAP/accommodation sector in Australia has also continued to evolve over the years as the understanding of youth homelessness has improved. This increased understanding of the needs of young people in the sector has been supported by research and data analysis. In particular the combination of the understanding of the social and emotional development needs of young people combined with a more developed understanding of the continuum of care framework has seen flexible and innovate service models being developed in an Australian context.
The continuum of care framework places programmatic responses within an understanding of young peoples needs rather than focussing on program responses.
The changes in the understanding of the social and developmental needs of young people has meant that services have developed flexible responses which:
· incorporate the social and recreational needs of young people;
· aim to connect young people to family and/or to develop positive relationships;
· assist and educate young people to develop the necessary social and living skills;
· connect young people to a wider range of community support services which meet their needs and which assist young people to participate positively in the community.
Over the last ten years the traditional youth refuge model, which initially was a just bed for a night (or as the name ‘refuge’ suggests - a safe place to stay) with a maximum stay of three months, has shifted in practice towards the ‘crisis accommodation model’. In the crisis accommodation model the young people can stay for as long as is needed to assess and support the young person to identify and obtain an improved living situation. However, crisis accommodation facilities will strive to have as short a stay as possible, while clearly understanding that the evidence shows improved outcomes can be achieved with a little more time than was the original practice. Various service delivery methods are used including case management, group work, telephone support and casual client contact. During the case management process the case or support plan is developed which aims for family reconciliation or restoration or a transition to more independent forms of housing. This transition dependent on the young person's situation, age, maturity, skills level, income and other needs may include a staged process to medium or longer term supported accommodation and then into independent housing with support and then independence.
Speaking at a recent celebration of a NSW youth accommodation service's achievement over twenty years, a young person who had made such a transition into independent accommodation and tertiary study through the service neatly captured these recent changes:
“This service wasn’t just a place to go … it was a place to grow.”
It was also obvious and encouraging that model had allowed the workers in the service to establish themselves as ‘significant adults’ during the young person’s developing adolescent years, that the young person wanted to come back and show off her achievements.
The crisis accommodation model is not just about a shift in language but has seen youth accommodation providers enhancing and in some cases broadening their approach and holistically responding to young people. Most service models have a component of social support (counselling, family support and mediation, social and recreational opportunities) and skill development
(education/training/employment). Many youth accommodations services have also developed other service models to meet the needs of their client group and to fill gaps in the service system. Where services are not delivering these programs they have attempted to work in partnership with other providers.
“Since 1995 there has been an explicit turn in youth policy towards building an early intervention capacity in schools and local communities”
(Chamberlain and Mackenzie 2004)
The idea is to prevent young people from entering into a cycle of chronic homelessness. Chamberlain & Mackenzie (5) identify two types of early intervention:
· The first is directed at those young people who are at risk of early home leaving and focuses predominantly on family reconciliation.
· The second is aimed at those young people where returning home is no longer an option and focuses on assisting these young people to access the resources and skills, such as income and accommodation, to transition to independence.
The aim of early intervention is to prevent young people from entering into a cycle of chronic homelessness, thus crisis accommodation providers have a major role to play in ensuring that young people receive not only a roof over their heads to address the immediate crisis but that they also receive the support necessary to prevent a further deterioration of their situation. This is mainly achieved through increased linkages with those services who can best assist the young people to met these needs, such as:
· Reconnect,
· Job, Placement, Employment and Training programs (JPET),
· Educational Support Programs like Links to Learning in NSW,
· Adolescent and Family Counselling Services
· Family Support Services
· Job pathways programs (JPP),
· Medium or long term SAAP providers
· Centrelink
Thus crisis accommodation providers not only provide accommodation, support, living and social skills education and many other services but also play a critical role in co-ordinating a young person being linked into a range of different services.
How this occurs varies from model to model. In the traditional refuge model the emphasis is usually on supported referral processes, other models see crisis accommodation services co-located with early intervention services or where these services provide outreach to the crisis accommodation providers.
The traditional communal refuge model has in many services been replaced by models that still provide intensive twenty four hour support and supervision but where capital money was available to redevelop the premises facilities incorporate greater privacy, safety and independence within the facility eg private bedrooms, private bathrooms etc. The lack of capital funds for property redevelopment has been a barrier to improvements to some models of service delivery.
We know that across the country there are some excellent examples of youth accommodation and support service models. These include residential facilities with high levels of support, medium term facilities with intensive support some with staff on site and some with staff providing an outreach support systems, we have longer term models such as independent houses in the community with outreach support and some with staff on site during flexible hours. We have brokerage models which enhance the ability to meet the case plan goals through funding to overcome barriers. Services provided are essential to help meets the needs of the young person and include living and social skills education, ongoing assessment and observation of behaviour and coping abilities, referral, support, advocacy and others. Liaison and case management with a range of other service providers is essential such as drug and alcohol services, mental health services, family support services and others.
There has also recently been the development of models which link employment, education and training with accommodation and support such as the Live N Learn Foyers model in Miller NSW and the mini Foyer in Wollongong NSW.
The refuge /crisis accommodation model does provide some essential components of care that are not able to be provided in other models eg intensive twenty four hour support and supervision. This is essential for clients who may not be ready to live without such support, who have health issues that required this level of support, who have other complex and high needs, and for those who are young and not mature enough to live without a high level of support.
Working with other service systems is not new – the community sector service system was built on co-operation and interagency work. Most services however have strong linkages with other service providers such as child protection, mental health, drug and alcohol, housing, family support and education services.
We should remember the independent evaluation (5) of SAAP Services in 2004 commended SAAP services and indicated the evidence showed they were effective in meeting the needs of clients and were successful in implementing the aims and objectives of the Program. The Evaluation indicated that many of the barriers in moving to independent living were outside the power of the SAAP service and included the lack of affordable secure housing as exit points, unemployment and poverty.
Challenges Ahead.
NYCH acknowledges that the not all States and Territories have been able to adopt more flexible service delivery models and there are still services that operate a more traditional youth refuge model. However it must be noted that there are often barriers to any redevelopment needed including funding and the lack of capital. It must be acknowledged that there are a range of diverse communities with difference levels of housing assistance across Australia. Due to the differences in the capacity of the service systems from metro (inner city) areas compared to rural and regional (outer metropolitan) areas there are variations in how youth crisis accommodation services respond to need. For example in South Australia the inner city areas may be more focussed on higher volume crisis accommodation while responses in regional centres have a greater focus on 24 hour residential care units.
In States and Territories such as the Northern Territory this is further exacerbated by geographical and cultural dimensions as well as the general density and lack of service provisions.
One of the biggest challenges to youth crisis accommodation services has been the increasing numbers of young people under the age of 16 years. Youth services have responded to this challenge by developing protocols and guidelines for practice. The implications for practice have been that the relationship based models of work has been eroded in some services due to the duty of care issues with regard to accommodating a younger age group. In recent years there has been an increasing trend in developing models of service that recognise the issues surrounding young peoples’ age and development.
There is also a well reported lack of exit points and options for young people leaving SAAP throughout the country. There is a lack of affordable and secure housing. For many years in NSW young have had no access to Dept of Housing waiting lists. This has a significant effect and stress on the capacity for transition. This lack of transition is a obvious limitation on the youth refuge / crisis accommodation model.
It is also well documented that services are also at capacity, that there is a significant unmet demand and yet even after twenty years of SAAP, services are still facing serious viability issues due to inappropriate levels of funding and despite its own advice (6), that Governments are still trying to make the program fit the funding rather than properly funding the program.
Conclusion
What is important here is to recognise that there is no one model which is the answer. There needs to be a properly funded range of models, a range of service responses and a range of options for young people. SAAP has been shown through evaluations that it does assist in meeting the needs of clients and is a successful world class program. The youth refuge / crisis accommodation model still has a vital part to play within SAAP V.
Footnotes
1. National Youth Coalition for Housing, National Youth Coalition for Housing Constitution, p.1
2. Commonwealth of Australia (1982)
3. SAAP III and SAAP IV (1997-2005)
4. Chamberlain, C. and D. Mackenzie (1998). "Youth Homelessness: early intervention and prevention". Sydney, Australian Centre for Equity through Education.
5. ErebusConsultingPartners (2004). "Final Report of the National Evaluation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) 4". Canberra, Dept of Family and Community Cervices.
6. For example the evaluation of SAAP IV called for a minimum 15% increase in base funding to begin to address service viability.
References
Commonwealth of Australia (1982) Homeless Youth http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/history/socialwelfare_ctte/homeless/
Chamberlain, C. and D. Mackenzie (1998). "Youth Homelessness: early intervention and prevention". Sydney, Australian Centre for Equity through Education.
Chamberlain, C. and D. Mackenzie (2004). Counting the Homeless 2001 New South Wales. Hawthorn Victoria, Simburne University and RMIT University.
Erebus Consulting Partners (2004). "Final Report of the National Evaluation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) IV ". Canberra, Dept of Family and Community Cervices.
|
|
