#11
Coming of Age
Reimagining the Response to
Youth Homelessness in Canada
Stephen A. Gaetz
Coming of Age
Reimagining the Response to
Youth Homelessness in Canada
ISBN 978-1550145946
© 2014 The Homeless Hub
This report is protected under a Creative Commons license that allows you to
share, copy, distribute and transmit the work for non-commercial purposes,
provided you attribute it to the original source.
How to cite this document:
Gaetz, S. (2014). Coming of Age: Reimagining the Response to Youth Homelessness in Canada.
Toronto: The Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
The Homeless Hub Research Report Series is a Canadian Homelessness
Research Network initiative to highlight the work of top Canadian researchers on
homelessness. The goal of the Research Report Series is to take homelessness
research and relevant policy findings to new audiences. Research reports in this
series constitute original, primary research and have undergone a rigorous peer
review process. For more information visit www.homelesshub.ca.
Acknowledgements:
Editing: Tanya Gulliver, Allyson Marsolais
Layout & Design by: Evan Winland-Gaetz, Patricia Lacroix
The Homeless Hub (www.homelesshub.ca) is a web-based research library and
resource centre, supported by the Canadian Homelessness Research Network.
About the Author
Stephen Gaetz, PhD
Associate Professor: Faculty of Education, York University
Director: Canadian Homelessness Research Network
Stephen Gaetz’s research has focused on the economic strategies, health,
education and legal and justice issues of people who are homeless, as well as
solutions to homelessness from both Canadian and international perspectives.
Dr. Gaetz is the Director of the Canadian Homelessness Research Network and the
Homeless Hub, projects dedicated to mobilizing homelessness research to have a
greater impact on policy, planning and service provision, thereby contributing to
solutions to end homelessness in Canada. Prior to coming to York University, Dr.
Gaetz worked in the youth homelessness sector for several years, both at Shout
Clinic and Queen West Community Health Centre in Toronto. He also spent a short
time with the City of Toronto in Community and Neighbourhood Services.
http://edu.yorku.ca/edu-profiles/index.php?mid=112721
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About this Report
The goal of the report, ‘Coming of Age: Reimagining the Response to Youth
Homelessness in Canada’ is to present an argument for approaching how we
respond to youth homelessness in a new way. The report achieves this by pulling
together key information about youth homelessness, to better inform how we
respond to the problem. As a peer-reviewed research document, Dr. Gaetz draws
on an existing base of research in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and the
United States, in order to identify effective approaches to youth homelessness
policy and practice. The report also draws heavily on several previous works by
Dr. Gaetz, including “Live, Learn, Grow: Supporting Transitions to Adulthood for
Homeless Youth–A Framework for the Foyer in Canada” (Gaetz & Scott, 2012)
and several chapters from the book Youth Homelessness in Canada: Implications
for Policy and Practice and in particular, the concluding chapter Ending Youth
Homelessness in Canada is Possible: The Role of Prevention (Gaetz et al., 2013a).
While this is a research report that will appeal to academics, the intended
audience is much broader. It has been written in a way to appeal to students,
service providers, policy makers and the general public. The key arguments
are intended to help inform decision-making in government, communities and
social service agencies. As a research document, it provides an evidentiary
base for creating more effective responses to youth homelessness. As a public
document, it is intended to inspire change and innovation, with the ultimate goal
of contributing to real and effective solutions to youth homelessness in Canada.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Index
1.0
Introduction
1.1 Ending Youth Homelessness
1.2 The Evidence
1.3 The Structure of this Report
2.0
About Youth Homelessness
6
What We Know About Youth Homelessness
Adolescence, Young Adulthood and the Experience of Homelessness
The Causes of Youth Homelessness
A Definition of Youth Homelessness
A Typology of Youth Homelessness
Conclusion
7
9
10
13
15
17
Developing a Strategy to End Youth Homelessness
18
3.1 Responding to Youth Homelessness
3.2 Rethinking the Canadian Response to Youth Homelessness
3.3 Turning the Curve: Developing an Effective Strategy to end Youth Homelessness
A Develop a Plan
B Create an Integrated Systems Response
C Facilitate Active, Strategic and Coordinated Engagement by all Levels of
Government and Interdepartmental Collaboration
D Adopt a Youth Development Orientation
E Incorporate Research, Data Gathering and Information Sharing
3.4 Conclusion: Making the Shift from Managing Youth Homelessness to
Prevention and Rehousing
4.0
Preventing Youth Homelessness
19
21
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
32
What do we Know and What can we do?
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.0
2
4
5
Developing a Response Based on the Needs of Young People
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.0
1
Framework for Prevention
Primary Prevention
Systems Prevention
Early Intervention
Conclusion
33
34
40
45
60
Emergency Services
61
Retooling the System
5.1 What is a Retooled Emergency System?
5.2 Key Elements
A Shorter Stays in Emergency Shelters
B Integration Into a ‘System of Care’
C Go Smaller
D Zero Discharge Into Homelessness
E Day Programs and Case Management
F Mental Health Supports
G Harm Reduction
H An Anti-Discrimination Framework and Practice
I Outreach
J Legal and Justice Issues
5.3 Conclusion
62
63
63
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
74
76
6.0
Accommodation and Supports
78
85
97
6.1 Integration Into a ‘System of Care’
6.2 Accommodation Options for Youth
6.3 Conclusion
7.0
77
98
Conclusion
101
7.1 Moving Forward
REF
References
102
A
Appendices
118
The Response to Youth Homelessness in the United Kingdom
1. Strategic Planning and Coordination
2. Prevention
3. Accommodation
4. Wider Needs (Supports)
Roadmap for Youth Homelessness (Australia, 2008)
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
Framework to End Youth Homelessness: A Resource Text for Dialogue and Action
101
119
120
122
123
124
127
A
B
C
Diagrams
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The Canadian Response to Youth Homelessness
The NAEH Typology of Youth Homelessness
The Present Canadian Response to Youth
Homelessness
Youth Homelessness as a “Fusion Policy” Issue
Shifting the Emphasis to Prevention and Rehousing
A Framework for Preventing Youth Homelessness
Early Intervention Framework
Accommodation as part of a System of Care
Intervention Model for Approaching Service Delivery.
10
16
20
28
31
33
46
78
128
ON DEALING
WITH A CRISIS
It is a truism that disasters require an emergency or crisis response. In
August 2003, a major wildfire, fueled by high winds and drought near
Kelowna, British Columbia, turned into a firestorm that quickly spread
towards populated suburban areas, eventually forcing the evacuation
of 27,000 residents. Eight years later, in 2011, another major wildfire
devastated the community of Slave Lake, Alberta. The fire forced the
complete evacuation of the town’s 7,000 residents.
Both of these events were devastating for the communities’ residents.
They lost their homes, their possessions and their communities. In the
face of both tragedies a rapid crisis response was quickly implemented.
People displaced by the fire were relocated to other communities and
provided temporary emergency shelter in motels, school gymnasiums,
local hockey arenas and, in many cases, slept on cots or mats. They were
given food, clothing and hygiene supplies. Plans were made to find them
new housing and lessons were learned about how to prepare for and
prevent, future disasters.
But, imagine for a second that the individuals and families in Kelowna
or Slave Lake were still living in hockey arenas or motels all these years
later. That would seem shocking and absurd and most of us would see
this as the complete failure of our emergency response–that we really,
really let these people down.
So why, are we satisfied with an emergency response to youth
homelessness that allows young people to languish in shelters
for years at a time, entrenching them in street life keeping
them from school and undermining their ability to move into
adulthood in a healthy and fulfilling way? Some of us believe,
without any evidence to back this up, that homeless youth
choose the street life, or that they are delinquents. We do not
hold the victims of fires to account and presume that because
they chose to live in cities on the edges of forests that they are
responsible for their predicament and that it is ok to keep them
in shelters indefinitely.
While emergency services will always be necessary, this should not be
the basis of our response to youth homelessness. We need to refocus
our efforts on preventing it from happening in the first place. For those
who can no longer stay at home we must develop a crisis response that
allows them to rapidly move into housing in a safe and planned way,
with the supports they need to help them transition to a healthy and
fulfilling adulthood.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Introduction
1.0
1.3
On the surface, youth homelessness seems to be an intractable problem. In many Canadian
cities, the sight of young people panhandling or sleeping in parks may be unsettling, but by
2014 it probably doesn’t shock most people. It seems that we have been dealing with this
problem for a very long time; because of its persistence the solutions to youth homelessness
can appear elusive.
However, the reality is that youth homelessness, as a pervasive
problem, is relatively new in Canada. Prior to the 1980s, while
there was some level of homelessness, it was not considered
to be a widespread and challenging predicament faced by
large numbers of people (Hulchanski et al., 2009). In fact, we
know quite well that key shifts in government policy (including
the cancellation of our national housing strategy in 1993, as
well as cutbacks to welfare and benefits in many jurisdictions)
combined with a restructuring of the Canadian economy
contributed to a rise in homelessness, including amongst
youth populations (ibid.; Pomeroy, 2007; Moscovich, 1997;
Chunn & Gavigan, 2004; Hulchanski, 2006). By the 1990s,
the numbers of people experiencing homelessness began
to increase quite dramatically in cities and towns across the
country.
As the visibility of youth homelessness increased, there
emerged a range of responses to the problem. On one
hand, we began to see the proliferation of community-based
services across Canada such as shelters, drop-ins and soup
kitchens, designed to meet the needs of young people who
found themselves without housing and family support. Many
communities in Canada have developed innovative and
responsive programs in this regard, reflecting the creativity
and capacity of people to address a really challenging
problem.
On the other hand, because homeless youth became a highly
visible ‘problem’ that most certainly captured not only the
attention of passersby, but also the media and politicians, a more
punitive response simultaneously emerged (Parnaby, 2003;
Esmonde, 2002; Hermer & Mosher, 2002). Responding to public
complaints and the depiction of street youth by the news media
and many politicians as delinquent or at best ‘rebellious’ and
‘bratty’, many communities responded to the emerging problem
through more aggressive policing practices and laws, such as
the Safe Streets Act, which target the money-making activities of
people who are homeless and in particular, youth (Sommers et
al., 2005; Kennelly, 2011; Bellot et al., 2005; 2008; 2011; Sylvestre,
2010a, b, Douglas, 2011; O’Grady et al., 2011; 2013).
1
When taken as a whole, our response to youth
homelessness in Canada can be characterized as weak; it is
non-strategic, lacking coordination and developed in an ad
hoc manner. While some communities are making progress
in this regard (Calgary, Kamloops, Kingston, for example), it
is safe to say that most are not. By continuing to emphasize
emergency supports—as important as they are—rather than
prevention or rapid rehousing, our strategy is simply to
manage the problem.
It is estimated that homeless youth make up about 20%
of the population that uses emergency shelters in Canada
(Government of Canada, 2012). This same study suggests
that between 2005 and 2009, the numbers of people who
are homeless who used shelters changed very little year in,
year out. So, in spite of our best efforts and some excellent
programs, the problem of youth homelessness continues to
persist, leading many to question whether it can ever really
be solved. Shelters remain full and we don’t seem to be
offering young people the kinds of solutions and supports
they need. There is little evidence that the number of young
people who become homeless and stay on the streets has
diminished over the past ten or fifteen years, despite our best
efforts.
Instead of becoming complacent with the
reality of youth homelessness, perhaps we
need to reimagine our response to the issue.
That is, it is time to shift from an approach that manages
the problem, to an approach that ends youth homelessness.
The good news is that we do not have to start from scratch.
There is considerable knowledge to be drawn from research
and innovations in Canada and international contexts that
point the way. The purpose of this report is to highlight such
innovation, to draw from research to outline a framework for
addressing youth homelessness and to identify evidencebased practices that can be adapted to local contexts.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Introduction ━ Ending Youth Homelessness
1.1
Ending Youth Homelessness
What do we mean when we say we can end youth homelessness?
Is it even possible? When making this assertion, we do not mean that there will never
be people in crisis who need emergency/temporary housing. There will continue to be
people who must leave home because of family conflict and violence, eviction or other
emergencies, as well as those who simply face challenges in making the transition
to independent living. Thus, there will always be a need for some form of emergency
services.
Rather, ending youth homelessness means eliminating a broad social problem that
traps young people in an ongoing state of homelessness. When young people come
to depend on emergency services without access to permanent and age-appropriate
housing and necessary supports, this leads to declining health and well-being and
most certainly to an uncertain future. An alternative is to look at approaches that
emphasize prevention and/or interventions that lead to appropriate housing options
with supports.
Ending homelessness as a concept has gained traction internationally (Quilgars et
al., 2011; FEANTSA, 2010; NAEH, 2002; USICH, 2009). This is also true in Canada,
where many communities and key national and regional organizations have declared
this not only a possibility, but a priority1. In calling for an end to homelessness, such
communities have developed strategic plans that promise to do things differently.
They are moving from managing homelessness to focusing on prevention and
sustainable exits from homelessness.
Ending youth homelessness
means eliminating a broad
social problem that traps
young people in an ongoing
state of homelessness.
1
This includes jurisdictions such as
Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Lethbridge,
Medicine Hate, Ottawa, Victoria, the province
of Alberta, as well as organizations such as the
Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, the
Canadian Housing and Renewal Association,
the Canadian Homelessness Research
Network, etc.).
2
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Introduction ━ Ending Youth Homelessness
1.1
Ending Youth Homelessness
In seeking to end youth homelessness, we should be focusing on developing
integrated homelessness strategies with the goal of ensuring that no young person
becomes homeless as a result of the transition to independent living. This report
argues that such strategies should have the following components:
1. Develop a plan.
2. Create an integrated system response.
3. Facilitate active, strategic and coordinated engagement by all
levels of government and interdepartmental collaboration.
4. Adopt a youth development orientation.
5. Incorporate research, data gathering and
information sharing.
A strategic response to youth homelessness does more than
assist young people to become independent. By focusing on
prevention and/or supported models of accommodation, the
goal is to help young people make a successful transition to
adulthood. In Canada, it is a widely held value that we should
work to ensure all young people have the opportunity to be
happy, productive and socially engaged adults. This should
most certainly be the focus of our strategy for homeless youth.
3
So, how do we get here? In this report, we present a
framework for ending youth homelessness. This framework
articulates the necessity of developing integrated and
strategic plans and service delivery models if we are to
successfully address the problem of youth homelessness.
Key to the framework is a detailed three-part model that
incorporates prevention, emergency services, as well as
accommodation and supports, as part of a comprehensive
strategy to end youth homelessness. The aim is to not only
provide a framework for change, but to inspire communities
to do things differently by giving them concrete examples
of ways forward. The solutions to youth homelessness
articulated here can be adapted by communities across
Canada and by all levels of government, provided there is a
willingness to learn from others, to adapt and innovate and
importantly, that there is commitment to change.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Introduction ━ The Evidence
1.2
The Evidence
In writing this report, the goal has been to pull together compelling evidence from
academic research, as well as solid examples of policy and practice in Canada
and elsewhere, to provide an evidentiary basis for the conceptual framework and
practical examples of program design proposed here. To this end, we draw on the
following sources of information.
First, Canadian and international research on youth homelessness helps
identify both causes and potential solutions. This research has been
particularly important in framing how to think about effective responses to
youth homelessness. The recent book of research on the subject, “Youth
Homelessness in Canada: Implications for Policy and Practice” (2013) has been
particularly helpful in this regard.
Second, examples of innovation with regard to addressing youth homelessness
in Canada are explored as a means of identifying what can be achieved.
Knowledge of effective Canadian responses is drawn from reports and
extensive conversations with service providers from across the country,
as well as leaders of national, regional and local organizations working to
address youth homelessness. Documentary evidence was also used to identify
program strengths and innovation and for the purpose of selecting interesting
case studies. The fact that there is very little rigorous evaluation research on
homelessness interventions in Canada is definitely a limiting factor in making
claims about program outcomes. Nevertheless, the case studies and profiles
provide an important place to start. In reimagining our response to youth
homelessness, we have a wealth of knowledge and inspiration from within our
borders; we need to mine this knowledge further.
Finally, this report is informed by extensive investigations into international
examples of systems level and program responses to youth homelessness
from the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. All of these
countries have unique histories, government structures and policy
frameworks, as well as different responses to youth homelessness. National
strategies, policies and research reports, as well as program models, are
examined here with an eye to how they might be adapted in the Canadian
context. It is clear that relative to Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia
have implemented much more strategic and integrated responses to youth
homelessness. However, the evidentiary basis for the outcomes of these
approaches (again, rigorous program evaluation) is not always extensive
and one should also be reminded that a jurisdiction can move from being
‘progressive’ and innovative, to regressive very quickly (note the outcomes of
austerity measures in the United Kingdom in recent years).
This review, then, reveals a wealth of evidence-based information regarding
innovative and effective responses that can be used to develop a Canadian
strategy aimed at preventing and ending youth homelessness. While this report
offers critical commentary on the way Canada has historically responded to youth
homelessness, much can be learned from our experience and applied to create real
change in communities across the country.
4
The Methodology:
The methodology for this report
involved the following: First, a scoping
literature review was conducted
of academic literature on youth
homelessness, focusing on Canada, the
United Kingdom, the United States and
Australia. The choice of these countries
is due to the language limitations of the
author, but also because a review of
literature from these countries provides
an opportunity to compare different
program, agency and systems level
responses. In conducting the scoping
review, criteria was established to
identify research that focused on: a)
the causes and conditions of youth
homelessness and b) interventions to
address homelessness generally and
youth homelessness in particular. This
included research on program and
agency level interventions, as well as
program evaluations.
Both academic and grey literature
research was examined. One of the key
findings is that (in Canada in particular)
there is very little evaluation literature
on homelessness interventions—and
in particular, those that impact youth—
that provide even minimally sufficient
evidence to consider such interventions
to be ‘promising practices’, let alone
‘best practices’.
Second, policy documents that
focused on responses to homelessness
generally (and to youth homelessness
in particular) in Canada, the United
Kingdom, Australia and the United
States were collected, reviewed,
compared and analyzed.
Third, qualitative interviews were
conducted with policy makers,
decision-makers and service providers
in order to understand current
thinking about how to address youth
homelessness. In some cases these
interviews were semi-structured,
in other cases they were part of
ongoing informal conversations about
interventions and practices. These
were conducted with individuals from
a number of communities across
Canada, including: Victoria, Vancouver,
Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Hamilton, Niagara Region, Ottawa,
York Region, Montreal, Halifax and
St. John's. Such interviews were
also helpful in identifying innovative
programming that could be shared as
case studies.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Introduction ━ The Structure of the Report
1.3
The Structure of the Report
The report is organized as a framework for ending homelessness, according to key
themes necessary for planning and implementing such a strategy. In the section
titled: “About Youth Homelessness,” it is argued that a targeted response must first
and foremost begin with an understanding that the causes and conditions of youth
homelessness are unique and distinct. Young people often become homeless with
little or no experience with independent living. They may face barriers to obtaining
housing or employment and in continuing with their education. Most significantly,
adolescents and young adults are in the throes of physical, emotional, cognitive
and social development; they are transitioning to adulthood. This shift occurs in a
context of societal oppression based on gender, race and sexual orientation. This
development, and the associated needs of young people who are homeless, must
be addressed in any strategic response.
The next section, titled “Developing a Strategy to End Youth Homelessness,” focuses
on the conceptual shift required if we are to move towards a strategy that will end
youth homelessness. Here the case is made for a more integrated response to youth
homelessness. Some Canadian jurisdictions are making important progress on that
front (Alberta and Newfoundland, for instance) and many communities are moving
towards more strategic, integrated approaches to addressing homelessness. Both
Raising the Roof and the Canadian Housing Renewal Association have released
policy statements that identify key components of effective strategies. Finally, much
can be learned from international contexts. Australia and the United Kingdom,
in particular, have made great progress in implementing national and regional
strategies that shift the response from managing homelessness to focusing on
prevention on the one hand and accommodation and supports on the other.
The following three sections provide a more detailed account of the proposed
framework. First, the section on Prevention identifies a range of approaches to
focusing on primary prevention, systems prevention and early intervention and
their applicability in the Canadian context. This is followed by a discussion of how
we build on the strengths of our Emergency Services, but also retool the sector
so that it supports the priorities of prevention and rehousing. In the final section,
different models of Accommodation and Supports are reviewed, ranging from
transitional housing to Housing First approaches. Here it is argued that an effective
accommodation strategy must go beyond bricks and mortar, to include a focus
on income and employment, education, supports and youth engagement (Gaetz
& O’Grady, 2013). In each of these cases, interesting examples from Canada and
elsewhere in the world are used to illustrate how the framework can be applied.
In looking at the international context it becomes apparent that something
interesting is happening; there is an emerging convergence of thinking about
responding to youth homelessness. This alignment centers around two themes:
first, that it is possible to prevent and end youth homelessness through strategic
planning and service coordination and second, there is a need to reorient national,
regional and local responses to homelessness away from a focus on emergency
services (which may unnecessarily prolong the experience of homelessness) to
one that emphasizes prevention and moving young people out of homelessness as
quickly as possible.
5
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
1.3
About Youth Homelessness
2.0
Becoming homeless then
does not just mean a loss
of stable housing, but
rather leaving a home in
which they are embedded
in relations of dependence,
thus experiencing an
interruption and potential
rupture in social relations
with parents and caregivers,
family members, friends,
neighbours and community.
Developing a Response
Based on the Needs of Young People
Youth homelessness is distinct from adult homelessness, both in terms of its causes and consequences, but also in how we
must consider and apply interventions. The place to begin a discussion of how to respond to the problem is to first explore
the underlying features of the problem. In this section, a brief literature review of youth homelessness is provided; one that
situates the problem within a broader understanding of adolescence and young adulthood in Canadian contemporary society.
The causes of youth homelessness are explored, with a focus on individual/relational factors, structural factors and the
importance of understanding how systems failures contribute to the problem. All of this sets the stage for providing an
operational definition of youth homelessness and a typology, which will be instrumental in considering what kinds of
interventions are suitable and for whom they might be most effective.
6
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ What We Know About Youth Homelessness
2.1
What We Know About Youth Homelessness
Youth homelessness is a serious issue in Canada. As described in the introduction
to this report, homelessness grew from a troubling issue afflicting a small
number of Canadians to a broader social and economic problem in the 1980s and
1990s. How extensive is youth homelessness in Canada today? In the State of
Homelessness in Canada 2013 report, it is estimated that about 200,000 Canadians
experience homelessness annually, and about 30,000 are homeless on any given
night (Gaetz et al., 2013:22). A report by Segaert estimates that about 20% of the
homeless population using shelters are unattached youth between the ages of
16-25, and a further 1% are under 16 (Segaert, 2012). This means that there are
at least 35,000 young people who are homeless during the year, and perhaps
6000 on any given night.. It is important to note that this does not include young
people who do not enter the shelter system, who are absolutely homeless and are
sleeping out of doors or in other places unsuitable for human habitation, or those
who are temporarily staying with friends and have no where else to live (couch
surfers).
The youth homeless population is also diverse. There are typically more homeless
male youth than females (Segaert reports that 63% of youth in shelters are male
and 37% are female), which may be an outcome of the fact that young women are
especially at risk of crime and violence (including sexual assault) while homeless,
leading them to find alternatives to the streets, even if those alternatives
pose other significant risks (Gaetz et al., 2010). Finally, certain significant subpopulations of youth are over-represented, including Aboriginal youth (Baskin,
2013) and in some cities like Toronto, black youth (Springer et al. 2013). Finally,
youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, transsexual or queer
(LGBTQ) make up 25-40% of the youth homeless population, compared to only
5-10% of the general population (Abramovich, 2013; Josephson & Wright, 2000).
While the category of homeless youth is marked by incredible diversity, what
unites this population is its youthful age and lack of experience of independent
living. This is important to consider because any response to homelessness—if it
is to be effective—must address the causes and the conditions of homelessness.
While there are some commonalities that frame the experience of homelessness
for young people and adults—lack of affordable housing, systems failures in
health care and corrections, for instance—there are important differences,
including physical, mental, social and emotional development. Homeless youth
typically lack the experience and skills necessary to live independently and this
is especially true for those under the age of 18. Moreover, the causes of youth
homelessness are not necessarily the same as those that impact adults. Family
conflict underlies youth homelessness; many are fleeing abuse or leaving the care
of child welfare services.
Street youth, unlike homeless adults, leave homes defined by relationships
(both social and economic) in which they were typically dependent upon adult
caregivers. Becoming homeless then does not just mean a loss of stable housing,
but rather leaving a home in which they are embedded in relations of dependence,
thus experiencing an interruption and potential rupture in social relations with
parents and caregivers, family members, friends, neighbours and community.
For all of these reasons and more, a youth-based strategy—and the services that
support this strategy—must be distinct from the adult sector.
7
The causes of youth
homelessness are not
necessarily the same as
those that impact adults.
Family conflict underlies
youth homelessness and
many are fleeing abuse or
leaving the care of child
welfare services.
1 in 5
shelter users
are youth
2:1
male to female ratio
in youth shelters
25 - 40%
of youth experiencing
homelessness self-identified
as LGBTQ
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ What We Know About Youth Homelessness
2.1
→ What We Know About Youth Homelessness
In making the case that youth homelessness requires different remedies or
solutions, it is important that we frame our understanding in terms of the
developmental needs of adolescents and young adults. Theories of adolescent
development highlight that, even in relatively stable environments, the transition
from childhood to adulthood can be challenging (Tanner, 2009; Christie & Viner,
2005; Steinberg, 2007). The developmental tasks associated with becoming
an adult are of course many and these occur against a backdrop of significant
physical, cognitive, emotional or social maturation (Steinberg & Morris, 2001;
Choudhury et al., 2006; Dorn & Biro, 2011).
The gradual assumption of adult responsibilities and practices defines this
transition. From the early teen years on, young people develop new capabilities
and take on new responsibilities bit by bit over an extended period of time. It is
well understood that successful transitions from childhood to adulthood require
attention to nutrition, strong adult support (including mentoring), opportunities
to experiment, take risks and explore (and make mistakes), learning to nurture
healthy adult relationships (including sexual relationships) and the gradual
acquisition of skills and competencies relating to living independently, obtaining
a job, etc. Importantly, we also know that education is a central priority for youth.
As a society we do what we can to help young people stay engaged with school as
long as possible.
It’s important to realize that these developments are overlaid with a complex
web of cultural and legal proscriptions that allow certain kinds of autonomous
decision-making and actions to occur. Typically these changes, which
incrementally prepare youth for independent living, are supported by a significant
amount of adult supervision and support both within the home and in the
community. Historical, social and economic factors have an impact on when
leaving home is desirable or even possible. Growing up in Canada is not the same
today as it was twenty or thirty years ago. For instance, according to Statistics
Canada, in 2011 42.3% of young adults (aged 20 to 29) “lived in the parental
home, either because they never left it or because they returned home after
living elsewhere.” This compares to “32.1% in 1991 and 26.9% in 1981”. (Statistics
Canada, 2012a:2). The rise in credentialism necessitates staying in school longer.
Additionally, the ability to obtain full employment with a living wage in a context
of rising costs of accommodation impedes the ability of many young people to go
out on their own in their late teens or early twenties. As part of the transition to
adulthood, leaving home and achieving independence is a lot more challenging
than it used to be.
A lack of
affordable housing
& low incomes
have led more youth to stay
home or return home
Growing up in Canada is
not the same today as it
was twenty or thirty
years ago.
Percentage of Canadian youth
living at home (aged 20 - 29)
41.1%
42.3%
2001
2011
32.1%
26.9%
1981
8
1991
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ Adolescence, Young Adulthood and the Experience of Homelessness
2.2
Adolescence, Young Adulthood and
the Experience of Homelessness
Losing one’s housing, family and community, challenges traditional notions of
adolescence. Rather than being granted the luxury of adjusting to adulthood
and its responsibilities and challenges, over an extended period of time, street
youth experience adolescence interrupted, wherein the process of transitioning
to adulthood is truncated. That is, the space to learn, practice, take chances and
assume responsibility is shortened as there is suddenly pressure to become
independent and become responsible for one’s well-being, exactly at a time when
the young person in question may be suffering from the trauma of multiple losses.
Youth homelessness is defined by inherent instability, profound limitations
and poverty. At a time when these young people are experiencing loss and
potentially trauma, they are simultaneously charged with managing a diverse
and complex set of tasks, including obtaining shelter, income and food, making
good decisions and developing healthy relationships. Typically, young people
who remain homeless for extended periods of time are also exposed to early
sexual activity, exploitation, addictions and safety issues (Milburn et al. 2009;
Saewyc et al., 2013; Gaetz, 2004; Gaetz et al., 2010) in a compressed time frame.
While young people who become homeless are thrust into adult roles at an
accelerated rate, it is also true that homelessness simultaneously forecloses the
opportunity to participate in many of the institutions that are designed to help
them navigate the transition to adulthood. For instance, access to housing and
employment may be very restricted for teens under the age of 18 (particularly
those under 16) and in some jurisdictions such as Ontario, there are considerable
barriers to accessing social assistance. This gives many young people little
choice but to participate in the informal economy, often including illegal and
quasi-legal activities such as drug dealing and the sex trade. Undermining
the employability of homeless youth is the fact that few are able to remain in
school. While the drop-out rate for young people in Canada is 8.5% (Statistics
Canada, 2012), the rate for homeless youth is exponentially higher at 65%
(Gaetz et al., 2010). This is an important consideration: high school drop-outs
face a considerable disadvantage in the labour market and may face exposure
to a life of poverty (Sum et al., 2009; Statistics Canada, 2010; 2012b; 2012c).
All of this suggests that for young people who become homeless, the challenge
of moving from childhood to adulthood is not only truncated, but qualitatively
different than is the case for most teenagers. Young people in this situation are
typically denied access to the resources, supports and perhaps most significantly,
the time that is expected and allowed for making this transition. They are
therefore excluded from a process that is widely held to be crucial to human
development, at a time when cultural, social and economic shifts are lengthening
the period for which young people are dependent upon adult caregivers.
9
Rather than being
granted the luxury of
adjusting to adulthood
and its responsibilities
and challenges, over an
extended period of time,
street youth experience
adolescence interrupted
While young people
who become homeless
are thrust into adult
roles at an accelerated
rate, it is also true
that homelessness
simultaneously forecloses
the opportunity to
participate in many of
the institutions that are
designed to help them
navigate the transition to
adulthood.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ The Causes of Youth Homelessness
2.3
The Causes of Youth Homelessness
So what exactly leads young people to become homeless in the first place? We
actually know quite a bit about pathways into youth homelessness. While there are
those who will insist that teenage runaways leave home in order to seek adventure,
see the world and express their independence—and indeed, this may be true for
a small minority of young people2—the research on street youth in Canada and
elsewhere suggests that a range of other factors are much more significant. When
we talk about pathways into youth homelessness, it is important to note, first, that
there is a great diversity of factors that may contribute to a young person leaving
home and second, that homelessness is rarely experienced as a single event and
may be the end result of a process that involves multiple ruptures with family and
community and numerous episodes of leaving, even if for short periods. The key
causes of youth homelessness, then, include a) individual/relational factors,
b) structural factors and c) institutional and systems failures.
STRUCTURAL
FACTORS
2
It is also acknowledged that there
are a small number of young people
who, though they may have experienced
family conflict and violence, interpret their
homelessness as more of a choice and/
or a political act. However, this in part
reflects how individuals interpret and
make sense of their independence and of
their desire to explore new opportunities.
The experience of this minority of
homeless youth cannot be generalized to
the larger population, however.
INDIVIDUAL &
RELATIONAL
FACTORS
SYSTEM
FAILURES
Diagram 1
The Causes of
Youth Homelessness
10
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ The Causes of Youth Homelessness
2.3
A
B
Individual or Relational Factors
Structural Factors
The research on youth homelessness is fairly consistent
in identifying difficult family situations and conflict as the
key underlying factors in youth homelessness (Karabanow,
2004; Karabanow & Naylor, 2013; Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002;
Braitstein et al., 2003; Hagan & McCarthy, 1997; Janus et al.,
1995). There is extensive research in Canada and the United
States that points to the fact that the majority of street youth
come from homes where there were high levels of physical,
sexual and emotional abuse, interpersonal violence and
assault, parental neglect and exposure to domestic violence,
etc. (Ballon et al., 2001; Gaetz et al., 2002; Karabanow,
2004; 2009; Rew et al., 2001; Thrane et al., 2006; Tyler &
Bersani, 2008; Tyler et al., 2001; Whitbeck and Hoyt 1999; Van
den Bree et al., 2009). In some cases, parental psychiatric
disorders (Andres-Lemay et al., 2005) and addictions
(McMorris et al., 2002) may be factors. It is also clear that
childhood abuse, trauma and living in a constant state of
fear, have long-lasting consequences for brain development,
decision-making, the formation of attachments and positive
social development (Baker-Collins, 2013; Anda et al., 2006;
Sokolowski et al., 2013; McEwan & Sapolsky, 1995).
Structural factors are systemic and social conditions
that extend beyond the individual and family situation,
but which shape individual experiences and decisions
both for young people and their parents. Poverty, underemployment and lack of housing stability also frame
the experiences of young people and also can underlie
stressors within the broader family that can lead to conflict.
The lack of affordable housing in Canada, for instance,
makes it incredibly difficult for young people with low
incomes and who may be facing age-based discrimination
to obtain reasonable accommodation. Lack of access
to an adequate education can result in disengagement,
low achievement and in the long run, difficulty obtaining
meaningful employment that pays a living wage. In fact,
low wages and under-employment directly undermine
a young person’s ability to live independently.
Strains within the family may also stem from the
challenges young people themselves face. Personal
substance use, mental health problems, learning
disabilities, disengagement with the education system
and dropping out, criminal behaviour and involvement
in the justice system are key factors (Karabanow, 2004).
The causes of these situations, however, are complex
and may be difficult to disentangle from some of the
stresses associated with parental behaviour identified
above (Mallet et al., 2005). In other words, conflict with
parents can result from a number of different stressors,
including the inability of children and/or their parents to
adequately cope with the challenges the other is facing.
11
In addition, many young people who are homeless
come from families defined by extreme poverty. This
undermines the health and well-being of young people,
impacts on their educational engagement and attainment
and may lead to their leaving home at an earlier age
because of the inability of their parents to support them.
Discrimination is also a key structural factor that contributes
to homelessness. Aboriginal (First Nations, Inuit and Métis
peoples) (Belanger et al., 2012) and black youth are overrepresented in the youth homeless population (Springer,
et al., 2013). Homophobia is also implicated in youth
homelessness, demonstrated by the clear overrepresentation
of sexual minorities in the street youth population
(Cochran et al., 2002; Gattis, 2009; Abramovich, 2013).
Discrimination (exacerbated when combined with
poverty) can contribute to school disengagement and
failure, criminality and gang involvement. The ensuing
conflicts with parents, community members and
law enforcement officials can lead to homelessness
(Springer et al. 2006; Sider, 2005; Fernandes, 2007).
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ The Causes of Youth Homelessness
2.3
C
Institutional & Systems Failures
Often young people become homeless and require resources
from the homelessness sector because of failures in other
systems of care and support, including child protection, health
and mental health care and corrections. System failures in
child welfare—including the fact that in many jurisdictions
young people “age out” of care at 18 3—means that for many
young people the transition from child welfare support is
not to self-sufficiency, but rather to homelessness (Dworsky
& Courtney, 2009; Goldstein et al., 2012; Lemon Osterling &
Hines, 2006; Lindsey & Ahmed, 1999; Nichols, 2013; Mallon,
1998; Mendes & Moslehuddin, 2006; Public Health Agency
of Canada, 2006; Serge et al., 2002). So for many of these
young people there is, then, no “home” to return to (Mendes
& Moslehuddin, 2004; Dworsky & Courtney, 2009; Gaetz,
2002; Gaetz et al., 2009; Karabanow, 2004; Lemon et al., 2006;
Nichols, 2012; Raising the Roof, 2009; Serge et al., 2002).
More than half of young Canadians who are homeless
have been in jail, a youth detention centre, or prison (Public
Health Agency of Canada, 2006). Young people involved
in juvenile justice or the adult system often leave prison
without sufficient discharge planning and supports. In a
sense, they are discharged from prison into homelessness.
Additionally, one needs to consider gaps in our health and
mental health care systems. The Canadian Mental Health
Association (CMHA) estimates that between 10-20% of young
people are affected by a mental health issue (CMHA website).
The onset of some mental health issues, such as schizophrenia,
typically begin when people are young and often as teens.
Worse, only one in five young people who need mental
health services receive them (CMHA website). Inadequate
mental health supports for young people while at home, can
potentially contribute to youth homelessness. Additionally,
young people are often discharged from health care facilities
with no home to go to. Once on the streets, the level of support
is often worse because young people lack family support,
financial support and the knowledge to navigate systems.
The causes of youth homelessness, then, have more to
do with individual/relational factors, structural factors
and systems failures, than with the decision to leave
home because one does not like the rules. Those who run
away for more frivolous reasons typically return home
quickly; having to wear the same socks for a week, going
hungry and a heightened likelihood of being a victim of
crime, can make doing the dishes seem not so bad.
12
For most young people who become homeless, it is typically
the complex intersection of a number of factors that leads
them to leave home. However, an important thing to consider
when discussing the causes of youth homelessness is that
the factors described above also beset many, many young
people who in the end do not become homeless. What is it that
actually creates the conditions for homelessness? This is not
well understood, but may include an event, the presence or
absence of natural or informal resources, individual resilience
or a chance decision by parents/caregivers or the young
person. The key point is that there is a serendipitous aspect
to youth homelessness that is necessary to acknowledge; our
response to youth homelessness must take account of this
(for instance, the need for prevention and early intervention).
Finally, it is important to understand that for many young
people, becoming homeless is more of a process than
an event. In some cases, a significant rupture can lead
to long-term homelessness. In other cases, the pathway
to the streets can be more gradual and episodic. That
is, a young person may leave home for a short period
and then return, only to experience the same stresses
and pressures that will cause them to leave again.
More than half of
homeless youth
have been in jail, a youth
detention centre, or prison
3
The term “aging out” of care refers to the situation where
once a young person reaches a certain age, they are no longer
entitled to a particular service or support, regardless of need or
circumstance.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ A Definition of Youth Homelessness
2.4
A Definition of Youth Homelessness
This discussion of adolescence, young adulthood and pathways into homelessness
helps us in considering how to define youth homelessness and distinguish it from
adult homelessness. A useful place to begin is with the Canadian Homelessness
Research Network (CHRN)’s “Canadian Definition of Homelessness”, which defines
homelessness as:
“the situation of an individual or family without stable, permanent,
appropriate housing, or the immediate prospect, means and ability
of acquiring it. It is the result of systemic or societal barriers, a lack of
affordable and appropriate housing, the individual/household’s financial,
mental, cognitive, behavioural or physical challenges and/or racism and
discrimination. Most people do not choose to be homeless and the experience
is generally negative, unpleasant, stressful and distressing.”
(Canadian Homelessness Research Network, 2012:1)
The Canadian Definition of Homelessness also proposes a typology that
describes different degrees of homelessness and housing insecurity, including:
“1) Unsheltered, or absolutely homeless and living on the streets or in places
not intended for human habitation; 2) Emergency Sheltered, including those
staying in overnight shelters for people who are homeless, as well as shelters
for those impacted by family violence; 3) Provisionally Accommodated,
referring to those whose accommodation is temporary or lacks security of
tenure and finally, 4) At Risk of Homelessness, referring to people who are not
homeless, but whose current economic and/or housing situation is precarious
or does not meet public health and safety standards.”
(Canadian Homelessness Research Network, 2012:1)
Youth homelessness is a sub-population of homelessness and refers to young
people between the ages of 13 and 24 who are living independently of parents
and/or caregivers and importantly, lack many of the social supports deemed
necessary for the transition from childhood to adulthood.4 In such circumstances,
they do not have a stable or consistent residence or source of income, nor do
they necessarily have adequate access to the support networks necessary to
foster a safe and nurturing transition into the responsibilities of adulthood.
Age also matters when considering youth homelessness. Developmentally, there
is a huge difference between the needs, circumstances and physical and emotional
development of a 14 year old compared to an 18 year old or a 23 year old (though
it must also be acknowledged that the factors that produce and sustain youth
homelessness—including violence, trauma and abuse, may also contribute to
developmental impairment for older youth). In addition to significant developmental
differences, one must also consider the different statutory responsibilities associated
with certain ages. Depending on the jurisdiction, the state will define the ages for
which child protection services are responsible for care, what kinds of mental health
supports are accessible and the age when one can live independently, obtain welfare
and other government benefits, or leave school, etc.
13
4
There is in fact great variation
in terms of how youth homelessness
is defined. This proposed age range
is meant to create some definitional
coherence and shared language for
Canada, at the same time with an
acknowledgement that it does not
necessarily reflect specific program,
policy and jurisdictional definitions.
For instance, in Toronto, young people
under the age of 16 are technically
the responsibility of Child Protection
Services when they show up at
agencies serving homeless youth. In
other provinces, the ages for accessing
services may differ.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ A Definition of Youth Homelessness
2.4
→ A Definition of Youth Homelessness
Additionally, one needs to consider the diversity of the youth homeless population,
in terms of gender, sexual orientation and race. Much of the research on youth
homelessness in Canada shows that males typically outnumber females 2:1
(O’Grady & Gaetz, 2004; 2009). In addition, some ethno-racial populations tend
to be over represented—most significantly, Aboriginal youth (Baskin, 2007; 2013;
Brown et al., 2007) and black youth (Springer et al., 2007; 2013)—while others
are not. While there is a growing body of research on homelessness among
immigrants and refugees, there is very little that focuses specifically on youth.
We do know from research on adults, that new immigrant populations experience
discrimination, difficulty accessing employment and linguistic barriers (Preston
et al., 2011; Murdie et al., 2006). For people without status, the challenges of
accessing services are particularly great. Finally, as suggested above, a significant
percentage of homeless youth report being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered,
transsexual or queer (Cochran et al., 2002; Gattis, 2009; Abramovich, 2013).
These differences do matter and need to be considered when developing
responses and interventions. The needs of young women on the streets are not
the same as the needs of young men. Sexual minorities and racial minorities face
discrimination that mainstream youth do not. Young mothers (Karabanow, 2013)
and young people from new immigrant communities (Springer, 2013) face special
challenges. A successful strategy needs to ensure that diverse needs are met.
14
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ A Typology of Youth Homelessness
2.5
A Typology of Youth Homelessness
One of the challenges of responding to youth homelessness is the differing needs
and the acuity of challenges they face. For instance, what is the appropriate level
of support for a young person who left home after a terrible argument with their
parents–but for whom the relationship is redeemable—versus a young person who
has been in foster care for years, has no connections to family and may be dealing
with mental health issues or addictions? The evolution in our responses to adult
homelessness has been built on a recognition of the necessity of taking account
of the frequency and duration of homelessness (see Kuhn & Culhane, 1998).
That is, there is a need to differentiate between those who experience short-term
homelessness and never return to the streets from those who are more episodically
homeless (moving back and forth) or those who become chronically homeless,
because the circumstances and needs of young people in these situations may
differ greatly.
There have recently been efforts to define a typology of youth homelessness that
captures key differences in terms of the factors that contribute to leaving home, as
well as the level of supports that young people should be able to access to leave
the streets. Toro et al., (2011) identified a number of factors that have been used
to define different typologies of youth homelessness, including differences based
on quality and extent of family relations, the reasons for becoming homeless, the
history of abuse and neglect and mental health status, etc. These differences are
important and need to be taken into account when creating a definition. Those who
experience of deprivation, conflict and abuse as a child will likely have a profoundly
different experience of homelessness than others and face additional challenges
in transitioning to adulthood and well-being. The degree of family and community
connectedness and support, on one hand, versus alienation and estrangement, on
the other, also shapes the experience of homelessness and the strategies that need
to be put in place to support young people.
The NAEH typology draws from
considerable research on frequency
and duration of homelessness (see
Kuhn & Culhane, 1998) and more
recently, a review of typologies of youth
homelessness put forward by Toro et al.,
2011.
5
The diverse backgrounds (NAEH) and experiences of homeless youth have led
the National Alliance to End Homelessness to articulate a useful typology of
youth homelessness5 as part of their framework for ending youth homeless.
This typology addresses diversity in terms of the causes and experiences of
homelessness and also helps map the duration and frequency of homelessness.
This is important from the perspective of interventions, because it helps identify
levels of need, existing informal supports and the risk of becoming chronically
homeless.
15
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ A Typology of Youth Homelessness
2.5
→ A Typology of Youth Homelessness
Below is an expanded presentation of the NAEH typology:
Temporarily Disconnected
As Kuhn and Culhane (1998) point out, the vast majority of people who become
homeless do so for a very short time, typically find their way out of homelessness
with little assistance and rarely return to homelessness. This is as true for adults
as it is for youth. The NAEH suggests that between 81 and 86 percent of homeless
youth fit into this category (NAEH, 2012). This group is characterized as generally
being younger, as having more stable or redeemable relations with family
members, a less extensive history of homelessness and are more likely to remain
in school. There is a strong need for prevention and early intervention to divert
this population from the homelessness system.
Unstably Connected
This population of homeless youth has a more complicated housing history and
is likely to have longer and repeated episodes of homelessness (Toro et al., 2011).
They are more likely to be disengaged from school and will have challenges in
obtaining and maintaining employment. Most will have retained some level of
connection with family members and are less likely to experience serious mental
health or addictions issues than chronically homeless youth. This is a group for
which family reconnection interventions, as well as transitional housing programs
are recommended, particularly for youth under 18.
Chronically Disconnected
In terms of numbers, this will be the smallest group of homeless youth, but at the
same time the group with the most complex needs with the heaviest reliance on
the resources in the youth homelessness sector. This group is defined by longerterm homelessness and a greater likelihood of repeated episodes. They will
also be more likely to have mental health problems, addictions issues and/or a
diagnosed disability. They will have the most unstable relations with families and
in some cases there will be no connections at all. Young adults in this category
may require more comprehensive interventions, as well as more supportive and
longer-term housing programs.
Communities can use this typology to understand, define and enumerate the
shape and scope of youth homelessness in their area. It provides insight into
the kinds of interventions needed to address youth homelessness, as one size
definitely does not fit all.
Diagram 2
The NAEH Typology of
Youth Homelessness
16
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
About Youth Homelessness ━ Conclusion
2.6
Conclusion
The definition and typology presented here provide us with clarity about who
exactly homeless youth are and a common language for discussing the issue.
The discussion of the causes of youth homelessness helps us develop effective
interventions. The key message here, however, is that any successful response
to youth homelessness must not simply model the adult response but must
be embedded in an understanding of the needs of the developing adolescent
and young adult. The goal of working with young people who are homeless
is not merely to push them towards independence in a context where there
are few jobs that provide a living wage (especially for drop-outs) and rental
housing is expensive. The focus of the work should shift to providing young
people with the supports they need so that they can transition to adulthood
and eventually independence, in a much more safe and planned way.
The goal of working with young people who are homeless is
not merely to push them towards independence, but rather to
support their transition to adulthood and well-being.
17
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy
3.0
1.3
Creating change means building on
strengths and being unafraid to
implement new approaches and/or
cease doing what clearly does not work.
The thought of ending youth homelessness can feel like
an impossible task given the overwhelming scope of the
problem and its apparent complexity. However, a lot is
known about effectively responding to youth homelessness.
A review of systems level and program responses to youth
homelessness in Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and
the United States reveals a wealth of innovative and effective
programs, strategies and approaches that can be applied
to the development of a Canadian strategy to end youth
homelessness.
18
What becomes clear from this review is that the successful
design and implementation of effective strategies are
contingent upon partnerships between government, a wide
network of disciplines, service and funding organizations, as
well as different sectors, both public and private. All levels
of government must support strategic initiatives to end
youth homelessness. At the community level, the not-forprofit sector plays an important and indispensable role in
implementing the plans and developing effective service
models that meet the context-specific needs of young people.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Responding to Youth Homelessness
3.1
Responding to Youth Homelessness
Implementing a strategy to end youth homelessness
invariably means doing things differently. This does
not in any way mean starting from scratch, nor does it
mean simply attempting to replicate what seems to work
overseas. Narelle Clay6 of Australia puts it this way:
“Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. In an
effort to do something different, in seeking innovation,
don’t overlook the services and models that are effective.
If you do this, the consequence will be a loss of community support and infrastructure that is invested in existing
local services.”
(Clay, 2008)
The second approach, the emergency response, is the set
of interventions available to someone once they become
homeless. The goal here is to provide emergency supports
in order to address basic and pressing needs for shelter
and food, for instance, in order to lessen the immediate
impact of homelessness on individuals and communities.
Some communities have emergency shelters and supports
designed specifically for youth, other places do not. The
‘emergency response’ can also include the use of law
enforcement. This includes enactment of special laws to
prohibit the activities of homeless people and/or more
extensive use of enforcement measures such as regular stop
and searches, ticketing and arrest (O’Grady et al., 2011).
Creating change means building on strengths and being
unafraid to implement new approaches and/or cease
doing what clearly does not work, or is counter-productive
(the criminalization of homelessness is an example of
the latter). Leadership and active participation by key
stakeholders is of course essential to managing change.
So, what is meant by restructuring and rebalancing our
response to youth homelessness? Broadly speaking, there
are three main approaches to addressing homelessness.
The third response supports rapid transitions out of
homelessness through the provision of appropriate
accommodation and supports. The goal is to get people
into housing and give them the supports needed (income,
health care and other assistance, for instance) to ensure
they do not fall back into homelessness. For young people,
for whom staying with parents or caregivers is no longer
an option, it means ensuring a planned and safe exit via
appropriate accommodation and supports (if necessary).
First, one can focus on prevention, which is to invest in
supports and the coordination of services so as to reduce
the likelihood that people will become homeless in the
first place. In addressing youth homelessness, this means
working ‘upstream’ to identify those at risk of homelessness
and putting in place interventions that greatly reduce
the risk that young people will become homelessness.
A mature and developed response to homelessness
ideally involves all three approaches, with a strong
emphasis on prevention and strategies that move
people quickly out of homelessness, supported
by emergency services that bridge the gap.
Preventive strategies can involve programming that
strengthens protective factors amongst adolescents
by enhancing engagement with school and building
their problem-solving and conflict resolution skills. It
also means stopping the flow of young people from
institutional care (child protection, mental health,
corrections) into homelessness. Finally and perhaps
most importantly, it means designing and implementing
effective early intervention strategies so that when
young people become homeless (or are at imminent
risk) they are given supports that either help them to
return home or to move into new accommodation (with
supports) in a safe and planned way.
19
6
Narelle Clay is Chief Executive Officer of Southern Youth and
Family Services http://www.syfs.org.au/
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Responding to Youth Homelessness
3.1
→ Responding to Youth Homelessness
While there are notable exceptions, few communities in Canada have taken
this approach. Most have put their energy and resources into the emergency
response; that is, providing a range of supports that merely manage people
while they are homeless (Gaetz, 2008; 2010) (See Diagram 3). This typically
results in a non-coordinated and ad-hoc patchwork of emergency services,
such as shelters and day programs, that are concentrated mostly in downtown
areas, that meet the immediate needs of young people who are homeless.
PREVENTION
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
ACCOMMODATION
& SUPPORTS
Diagram 3
The Present Canadian Response
to Youth Homelessness
While emergency services are important and necessary,
we cannot rely on this as the ‘system’ if our goal is to
end youth homelessness. In fact, it could be argued that
as a society, we have become too comfortable with this
approach, believing that our current emergency response
is effectively dealing with the problem of homelessness.
“In some cases, responses to homelessness have in fact
become part of the problem. For example, hostels that
were originally designed as temporary accommodation
have become places where people stay long-term, serving
to entrench homelessness. Hostels can fill up with longerterm service users and cease to fulfill their original function as temporary accommodation, meaning that more
such accommodation has to be provided...”
(FEANTSA, 2010:2)
Plenty of research attests to the limitations of responses
that rely mainly on emergency services. First and foremost,
keeping young people in a state of homelessness
clearly compounds a range of problems not only for the
homeless people themselves but also for society at large.
20
The damage to families and communities that results
from youth homelessness is considerable. Second, the
physical and mental health and well-being of young
people who experience homelessness deteriorates
and problems are exacerbated (Yonge Street Mission,
2009; Gaetz et al., 2010; MacKay, 2013). Additionally,
young people who are homeless typically suffer from
malnutrition even when they get their food from drop-ins
and shelters (Tarasuk et al., 2009a,b; Tarasuk & Dachner,
2013; Dachner & Tarasuk, 2013; Gaetz et al., 2006).
By keeping young people in a state of homelessness,
we make homelessness visible in communities across
the country. This often leads citizens, the media and
politicians to respond to this growing visibility by
implementing either new laws (against panhandling,
sleeping in parks, etc.) or aggressive policing involving
ticketing, increased stop and searches and arrests. This
is referred to as the ‘criminalization of homelessness’,
which unfortunately often goes hand-in-hand with a robust
emergency response (Sylvestre, 2010a; 2010b; Bellot et
al., 2008; O’Grady et al., 2011; O’Grady et al., 2013).
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Rethinking the Canadian Response
3.2
Rethinking the Canadian Response
That most communities in Canada have built their response to homelessness
around emergency services should come as no surprise. A short overview of
national responses to homelessness in the United Kingdom, the United States
and Australia reveals that when homelessness emerges as a ‘problem’, the first
response is to develop emergency services. In time, there is usually a paradigm
shift that leads to a greater emphasis on planned and coordinated responses
that rebalance the approach to focus more on prevention and accommodation
along with a retooling of the emergency sector to support these goals.
While Canada lacks a national strategy to end youth homelessness, much can be
learned from the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. A review of
policy and research literature reveals more developed and strategic responses
to homelessness. In each of these cases, all levels of government are engaged
in the process of creating legislation, strategic plans and funding frameworks to
address homelessness (and youth homelessness in particular). All three countries
engage the non-profit and private sectors in their approaches and all have
progressively developed systems aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating
homelessness. It should also be noted that these countries have been dealing with
homelessness as a major problem for a much longer time than Canada has.
The United Kingdom and Australia currently have the most sophisticated
responses to youth homelessness, while the United States is rapidly
moving towards adoption of a national strategy. In the UK, the most notable
development has been the establishment of the National Youth Homelessness
Scheme (NYHS), first announced in 2006 as a national strategy to ‘tackle and
prevent homelessness’ (See Appendix A). The overarching goal is to have the
national government work with local authorities to develop and implement
interventions to support individual young people and their families so as to
prevent homelessness and help youth transition to adulthood in a sustainable
and safe way. The NYHS outlines the four key components of their framework:
‣ Strategic planning & coordination
‣ Prevention
‣ Accommodation (Direct access to
housing & transitional housing)
‣ Wider needs (Supports)
While the National Youth Homelessness Scheme is undoubtedly impressive and
ambitious in its conception and scope, one word of caution. Nations, institutions
and programs can quickly move from progress and innovation to stagnation
and regression. The extensive resources to support the NYHS are now no longer
available and in the context of the austerity measures invoked by the current
Conservative government in the UK, the future of the program is uncertain.
In Australia, the national government began to tackle youth homelessness in a
serious and sustained way in the 1980s (MacKenzie & Chamberlain, 1995; 2006).
The first of several main policy initiatives was the establishment of the Supported
Accommodation and Assistance Program (SAAP) of 1985, which also included a
Youth SAAP component. This was followed by other legislative changes over the
years7, as well as innovations in service delivery. Australian states (equivalent
to Canadian provinces) have also developed strategic responses to youth
homelessness and have been major innovators in program planning and design.
7
Examples include:
- Youth Social Justice Package for Young
Australians (1989),
- Innovative Health Services for
Homeless Youth (IHSHY) (1989),
- Job Placement, Employment and
Training Program (JPET) (1992)
- Reconnect program (1999)
In developing The Road Home (Australia’s strategy to end homelessness,
(Australian Government, 2008a), the NationalYouth Commission Inquiry intoYouth
Homelessness (est. 1987) reviewed Australia’s response to youth homelessness
21
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Rethinking the Canadian Response
3.2
→ Rethinking the Canadian Response
with the goal of pulling together various program strands into a coherent national
strategy that addresses youth homelessness (National Youth Commission, 2008).
The report provides a “Roadmap for Youth Homelessness” and highlights ten
strategic action areas (See Appendix B), which emphasize the need to develop
and implement a national framework for action on homelessness, increase
the supply of affordable and supported housing for youth in communities
across the country, strengthen the emphasis on prevention, early intervention,
service integration and child welfare reform, as well as ensure that young
people have ongoing supports (after they leave the system, if they need it).
The United States is also moving rapidly in this direction, since the launch
of the Federal Government’s Ten Year Plan to end homelessness, “Opening
Doors” (USICH, 2010). In 2012 they released an amendment to the plan that
specifically addressed strategies to address children and unaccompanied
youth homelessness, around the same time that the National Alliance to End
Homelessness released its typology of youth homelessness. Finally, in 2013,
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) launched its
Framework to End Youth Homelessness, identifying four core outcomes for youth:
‣
‣
‣
‣
Stable Housing
Permanent Connections
Education or Employment
Social-emotional
well-being
Designed to help coordinate federal, state and community efforts to address
youth homelessness, the framework focuses on two complementary strategies,
including a data strategy and a capacity strategy. More details regarding the
Framework to End Youth Homelessness can be found in Appendix C.
While much can be learned from these international examples, one has to
exercise a degree of caution when thinking about the transferability of such
approaches. The policy context is significantly different (not to mention our
model of federalism in Canada) and one must be wary of the potential for ‘smoke
and mirrors’; presentations of effective responses often highlight policy and
program strengths and downplay weaknesses, gaps and other challenges.
Nevertheless, it can be argued that the conceptual framing of such strategies
can help us reimagine a Canadian response to youth homelessness.
Elements of these policy frameworks can be adapted and applied here, as
well as important innovations in program and service delivery. There is a real
opportunity to build on the successful programs and services for homeless
youth that exist in Canada, as on the momentum from strategic and integrated
responses to youth homelessness that are developing across the country.
In particular, one can look at the Calgary Homeless Foundation’s Plan to End Youth
Homelessness in Calgary, as well as the Government of Alberta’s emerging approach
to strategic coordination and service integration to address youth homelessness.
Recently, the Mobilizing Local Capacity (MLC) project has taken the lead on
supporting smaller communities across Canada in developing and implementing
community plans to address youth homelessness. A partnership between the
Catherine Donnelly Foundation, Eva’s Initiatives and the Canadian Housing and
Renewal Association, the MLC project is encouraging communities to adopt a
systems approach, to develop a strong community engagement strategy and draw on
evidence-based practice in formulating plans. To date, four communities (including
Kingston, Ontario; Kamloops British Columbia; Saint John, New Brunswick and
Wellington City, Ontario, have been supported to develop plans. All of this suggests
there is momentum in many communities to support more integrated, planned
responses to youth homelessness and that there exists a clear thirst for change.
22
There is a real opportunity
to build on the successful
programs and services
for homeless youth
that exist in Canada.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Rethinking the Canadian Response
3.2
Plans to End Homelessness
Plan to End Youth Homelessness in Calgary
Calgary Homeless Foundation
Canada
June, 2011
Comprehensive Plan to Prevent and End Youth and Young Adult
Homelessness in King County by 2020
Homeless Youth and Young Adult initiative
King County (Seattle) Washington, USA
August, 2013
More Than a Roof: How California Can End Youth Homelessness
California Homeless Youth Project
California, USA
January, 2013
Plan to End Youth Homelessness in Calgary
Calgary Homeless Foundation
Canada
June, 2011
23
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Turning the Curve
3.3
Turning the Curve
Developing Effective Strategies to End Youth Homelessness
The longer we allow young people to remain homeless, the
worse their problems become and the greater their
challenges in moving off the street.
We now know that the longer we allow young people to
remain homeless, the worse their problems become and the
greater their challenges in moving off the street (O’Grady et
al., 2011; Yonge Street Mission, 2009). We need to really ask
whether keeping young people in a “state of emergency”,
means we are really helping them? Is it enough to treat the
symptoms while ignoring the causes?
Effective strategic responses attempt to reduce a problem,
rather than simply manage it. In moving towards a more
strategic and coordinated response to youth homelessness
in Canada, a shift from emergency services (which may
unnecessarily prolong the experience of homelessness)
to prevention and accommodation (with necessary and
appropriate supports) must be a priority. But what does
that look like? What is involved in that shift? How do we get
there?
The framework presented here draws from what has been
learned from effective responses about the structural factors
that need to be addressed, as well as the systems that need
to be in place in order to implement an effective strategy
to end youth homelessness. The proposed framework for
ending youth homelessness outlines key components that
can be implemented at the national, provincial or community
levels that will help shift the emphasis from managing
youth homelessness, to one that focuses on prevention
and rehousing. Guiding the proposed framework is the
principle that a strategic response to youth homelessness
must not only reflect an understanding of the causes and
circumstances of youth homelessness, but must include
specific strategies that address this understanding.
24
A review of strategic responses to youth homelessness
identifies several core components of an effective
framework. This includes:
1. Develop a plan
2. Create an integrated system response
3. Facilitate active, strategic and coordinated
engagement by all levels of government and
interdepartmental
collaboration
4. Adopt a youth development orientation
5. Incorporate research, data gathering and
information sharing
In conclusion, this will mean making a major shift from
managing youth homelessness through the provision of
emergency services, to rehousing young people. The goal is
not simply to help move them to independence, but rather,
to enable a successful and supported transition to adulthood
and well-being.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Turning the Curve
3.3
Core Components of an Effective Framework
1. Develop a Plan
The first step is devising and implementing a plan or
strategy, one that is inclusive in its process, strategic in its
objectives, sets real and measurable targets for change,
is clear to all stakeholders and leads to real changes in
young people’s lives. By design, it engages the necessary
players from the community, all levels of government
and the non-profit and private sectors to work towards
real reductions in homelessness. The success of the
plan depends on collaboration among a wide range of
stakeholders including funders, governments, service
providers (mainstream as well as homeless-serving
organizations) and people affected by homelessness.
Countries with comprehensive and integrated responses
to youth homelessness–such as Australia and the
United Kingdom–have national plans that set out clear
strategic priorities and roles for all levels of government,
communities and the non-profit and private sectors
(Minnery & Greenhalgh, 2007; Parliament of the United
Kingdom, 1996; 2002a,b,c; Communities and Local
Government, 2005; Australian Government, 2008a,b;
USICH, 2010a). The “10 Year Plan” approach, which
originated in the United States with the National Alliance
to End Homelessness (2002) and has since been adopted
by the US Government (2009), has been adapted and
applied in over ten Canadian communities, including
most cities in Alberta and is now being mandated to
be adopted by communities in Ontario. This approach
has proven to be successful as a means of coordinating
resources at the national, regional and local levels.
“Ten Year Plans are a challenge to the status quo
and will not be without controversy, detractors and
difficult conversations. Don't expect a smooth ride!
Your planning process should anticipate some conflict,
so ensure your planning committee has a measure of
independence, a balance of perspectives, a focus on
action and results, an agreed upon process and,
importantly, a deadline.”
The Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness’ A Plan Not
A Dream (2012) outlines the key elements of a successful
community plan to end homelessness; these ideas can
easily be incorporated into a youth-focused plan:
A Must be evidence-based.
B Must have measurable and ambitious outcomes
and key milestones.
C Is a learning, living and adaptive document.
D Covers the 10 Essentials, including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
E
Planning
Data, research and best practice
Coordinated system of care
Income
Emergency prevention
Systems prevention
Housing-focused outreach
Rapid re-housing
Housing support services
Permanent housing
Is the product of an inclusive community process
that engages key players in the local homeless
system, including people with lived experience.
Any plan to end youth homelessness should include
a statement of guiding principles and core values, for
these shape how one responds to the needs of young
people. As with the Ten Year Plan model, an effective youth
homelessness strategy must also have clearly articulated
goals and objectives, timelines, responsibilities and
benchmarks, as well as measurable targets. The right players
must be engaged in the development and implementation
of the plan and importantly, young people must be
involved in planning, delivery and evaluation, as their
voices must be included in any quality assurance system.
A Plan Not A Dream
Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness
25
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Turning the Curve
3.3
→ Core Components of an Effective Framework
2. Create an Integrated Systems Response
In any community there may be a range of public, non-profit
and charitable programs and systems and services that
serve low-income and homeless individuals and families.
In large communities there may be dozens of such services.
Together these programs are usually a patchwork emergency
response that is not effectively coordinated into a system of
care designed to end homelessness. The homeless services
may not effectively work together or even with reference to
each other. This is important to consider. A loose collection
of non-coordinated emergency services that do not share
similar goals and objectives will not lead to effective results.
’Systems of care’ have been adopted in some US and
Canadian communities that support strategic and
planned approaches to ending homelessness. The
Calgary Homeless Foundation has implemented this
model8 as part of its Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness.
Through this approach, they have coordinated a broad
array of services and supports, wherein different
service providers have defined roles in relation to other
providers. Through a supportive policy infrastructure,
the system integrates service planning, coordination and
management at the sector, agency and program levels.
The move towards a strategic response to youth
homelessness requires an integration of services both
within the homelessness sector, but just as importantly,
between the sector and mainstream social, educational
and health services. As opposed to a fragmented collection
of services, an integrated systems response requires
that programs, services and service delivery systems
are organized at every level–from policy, to intake, to
service provision, to client flow–based on the needs of
the young person. Integrated service models are typically
client-focused and driven and are designed to ensure
that needs are met in a timely and respectful way.
Ultimately, then, when an individual or family becomes
homeless and ‘touches’ the system they are immediately
assessed, their needs are identified and plans are put in
place. All of this is done with a client-centered focus, so
that they are in charge of determining their needs and
where they need to go. As they move through the sector,
different agencies work collaboratively to help meet those
needs and move them out of homelessness as quickly as
possible. All of this points to the need for effective data
management and information sharing systems, so that
one becomes a client of the system, not just an agency.
This is referred to as a “System of Care” approach.
Originating in children’s mental health and addictions sectors,
the concept can be defined as: ‘‘an adaptive network of
structures, processes and relationships grounded in system
of care values and principles that provides children and youth
with serious emotional disturbance and their families with
access to and availability of necessary services and supports
across administrative and funding jurisdictions’’
(Hodges et al., 2006:3).
8
For information on the Calgary Homeless Foundation’s
System of Care approach, go to:
http://calgaryhomeless.com/what-we-do/system-planning/
26
In an uncoordinated and fragmented system, individuals
and families can get lost as services focus on meeting
immediate needs only. A coordinated system responds
to client needs, ensuring services are there when they
need them and that they do not get lost in the maze.
An effective plan to end youth homelessness must,
then, include the development and implementation of
a systems approach. Services within the homelessness
sector need to be coordinated and integrated, so that
different agencies, and programs have clear roles and
mandates in order to work together as providers for
the same clients. The systems coordination has to work
beyond the homelessness sector as well, to include
mainstream services, such as health care, supports for
those with addictions and mental health challenges,
housing services, child welfare and corrections which
all must be part of the homeless sector’s coordinated
system of care. The community-based services of the
homelessness sector cannot alone solve homelessness.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Street Youth Planning Collaborative (SYPC)
Hamilton, Ontario
One of the best Canadian examples of an integrated service response to youth
homelessness can be found in Hamilton, Ontario. In this case, the range of street
youth serving agencies in the city actively collaborate to ensure that the needs
of young people who become homeless are met through collective planning,
integrated service delivery and a desire to ensure young people’s needs are
appropriately met by a seamless and comprehensive range of services.
The integrated model has been supported by the Street Youth Planning
Collaborative (which is funded by the Social Planning and Research
Council of Hamilton), which since 2002 has been working with agencies
in the area to design and implement an integrated strategy.
The SYPC is in fact a multi-layered committee that includes the directors of
street youth serving agencies, front line DCA staff and young people who have
experienced homelessness. The key agencies include Alternatives for Youth,
Good Shepherd Youth Services, Hamilton Regional Indian Centre, Living Rock
Ministries and Wesley Youth Services. They work in a collaborative fashion and
work to avoid competition, with the focus being on meeting the needs of young
people. The underlying philosophy of the SYPC is to support healthy adolescent
transitions to adulthood, rather than merely rush young people to independence.
“Together, we aim to provide effective responses and solutions that can
assist youth to overcome the issues and barriers that they experience
and transition away from street-involvement and homelessness. In our
work together, we have contributed to the development of a continuum of
coordinated services and we have built a comprehensive range of supports
that addresses the following areas: outreach, prevention and early intervention,
basic needs, mental health, physical health, education, employment, social
and recreational, young parenting, housing and diversity and inclusion.”
(Street Youth Planning Collaborative, ND)
The SYPC model demonstrates how an integrated service delivery model
necessarily requires: a) a coordinating body, b) a spirit of collaboration (not
competition) between participating services and c) a systems design that considers
the needs of young people and the flow of clients through the maze of services, d)
the importance of different voices at the planning table, including managers, front
line staff and importantly, young people who have experienced homelessness.
27
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Turning the Curve
3.3
→ Core Components of an Effective Framework
3. Facilitate Active, Strategic, Coordinated Engagement by all Levels of
Government and Interdepartmental Collaboration
In countries that are showing success, there is recognition
that partnerships are key to ending homelessness.
This requires that all levels of government (including
Aboriginal governments) be at the table and engaged
in the strategic responses. Communities cannot
necessarily address all of the factors involved (health
and mental health, child protection, corrections,
affordable housing supply etc.) without the direct
engagement of higher levels of government. All of this
enables the non-profit and private sectors to make
a contribution to ending homelessness as well.
Within government, interdepartmental collaboration
and responsibility must be seen as part of the solution.
Homelessness is a “fusion” policy issue. It must necessarily
involve health, corrections and justice, housing, education
and child welfare, for instance. This may seem obvious but
it is one of the biggest challenges in dealing with the issue
of homelessness. Successful plans to end homelessness
in the US, Australia and the UK demonstrate that strategic
responses must bring other government sectors to the
table and that these sectors must be mandated (through
legislation) to address the flow of people into homelessness.
In Canada, the Government of Alberta incorporates
intergovernmental responsibility as a necessary feature
of its coordinated response to homelessness.
As long as homeless shelters are paid on
a per-diem basis and program outputs are
based on the number of clients who use
the service, such services are rewarded for
keeping people homeless, as opposed to
helping them move out of homelessness.
28
TRAINING
INCOME SUPPORTS
CORRECTIONS
EDUCATION
YOUTH HOMELESSNESS
ADDICTIONS
HEALTH
CHILD PROTECTION
MENTAL HEALTH
Diagram 4
Youth Homelessness as
a “Fusion Policy” issue.
Finally, it is essential that governments create a policy
and funding framework that allows such change to
happen. A great plan means nothing if adequate resources
are not made available or if funding practices do not
support and enable change. The shift cannot happen if
existing homelessness services are asked to do more
without additional funding, or are expected to carry
the full responsibility for creating change, when many
of the key drivers of change (whether this be funders,
or the role of mainstream services) lie outside of the
sector. For instance, as long as homeless shelters are
paid on a per-diem basis and program outputs are based
on the number of clients who use the service, such
services are rewarded for keeping people homeless, as
opposed to helping them move out of homelessness.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Turning the Curve
3.3
→ Core Components of an Effective Framework
4. Adopt a Youth Development Orientation
While some elements of an adult homelessness strategy can be
adapted to address youth homelessness, there are key considerations
specific to youth that must be acknowledged. As argued in Section
2 of this report, the causes of youth homelessness are distinct from
those of adults and therefore the solutions must be as well.
Issues relating to adolescent development, for instance, must be considered in
any approach. Homeless youth–especially those under the age of 18–typically lack
the experience and skills necessary to live independently. Just as importantly,
many homeless youth will be in the midst of important physical, psychological
and emotional development. Unfortunately, when young people become
homeless or are in crisis, many of the assumptions about what is important in
adolescent development are abandoned in the rush to make them self-sufficient.
The ultimate goal of any
strategy to address youth
homelessness is not
merely to support young
people in their transition
to independence, but
rather, to support their
transition to a healthy and
meaningful adulthood.
We need to build youth homelessness strategies that prioritize healthy adolescent
development and shift the goal of the work from a transition to independence, to
a successful transition to adulthood and well-being. A comprehensive approach to
youth homelessness focuses on more than simply meeting instrumental needs and
should include service components that focus on:
- Stable housing
- Income
- Education and training
- Necessary supports, when applicable (health, mental health, addictions)
- Life skills
- Engagement in meaningful activities
- Healthy and meaningful relationships (including family and friends)
Services for homeless youth are targeted at a diverse population.
The age range of services (13-24) means that service provision
must necessarily span great developmental differences amongst
the youth population. The presenting issues and needs of a 13 year
old are different from those of a 16 year old, or a 20 year old.
In addition, there is the need to take account of diversity. The needs
of young women on the streets are not the same as the needs of
young men. Sexual minorities and racial minorities face discrimination
that mainstream youth do not. Young people from new immigrant
communities face special challenges. A successful strategy needs to
ensure that diverse needs are met. One size does not fit all.
Finally, a successful strategy should provide different interventions and supports
for young people based on need. The NAEH typology that defines homeless youth
in terms of “temporarily disconnected”, “unstably connected” and “chronically
disconnected” articulates important differences that require varying responses.
29
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Turning the Curve
3.3
→ Core Components of an Effective Framework
5. Incorporate Research, Data Gathering
and Information Storage
It should go without saying that research and evidence ought to influence any
significant social or economic problem in society. Compared to Canada, the United
Kingdom, the United States and Australia have historically had a much stronger
commitment to the use of research and data as part of their strategic responses
to homelessness. However, things are rapidly changing. In communities that
have the most successful response to homelessness, there is a growing respect
for the role of research, evidence and data management. Research can impact
the solutions to homelessness by providing a deeper understanding of the
problem, strong evidence for solutions and good ideas from other countries that
can be replicated and adapted locally. Research should be part of any strategic
solution to youth homelessness and should include the following elements:
A Information and data management. System-wide data collection and
sharing across sectors must be in place to support an outcomesbased approach to addressing homelessness. This is extremely
important, since progress cannot be measured without it.
B Basic research on the causes, lived experience and
solutions makes for better policy and practice.
C Program Evaluation. Instituting a culture of evaluation in the sector
(and providing funding) is important to demonstrate the effectiveness
of strategies and practices. This supports the drive for ‘continuous
improvement’, the measurement of progress, more effective planning
and also becomes a means to identify effective models and practices.
D Knowledge Mobilization. Communities should be supported to
develop mechanisms and strategies to identify effective practices and
enable the sharing of them both within and between countries.
Integrated data management systems are seen as essential to supporting
systems approaches. In the United States and some Canadian communities
such as Calgary, Homelessness Management Information Systems (HMIS)
have been developed for the homelessness sector that enable the coordination
of services, tracking of clients and measuring of impact of service delivery
models. In Canada, a new updated version of Homeless Individuals and
Families Information System (HIFIS) has been rolled out that has many
of the same capabilities for supporting service integration. It is designed to
“enhance services providers’ ability to manage their operations and collect
information about the population using shelters, such as: client bookings,
provision of goods and services, housing placement and case management
and will be made available for free” (Government of Canada, 2013).
30
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Developing a Strategy ━ Conclusion
3.4
Conclusion
Making the Shift from Managing Youth
Homelessness, to Prevention and Rehousing.
A key underlying theme of this report is that we can end youth homelessness,
with good ideas, the right framework and proper commitment from key players.
The framework presented in the following sections suggest a new orientation
to addressing youth homelessness that retains the three main components—
prevention—emergency services—accommodation and supports, but shifts
the emphasis. Prevention and accommodation (with supports) become a
greater priority, while emergency services are retooled to facilitate this shift.
PREVENTION
EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
ACCOMMODATION
& SUPPORTS
Diagram 5
Shifting the emphasis to
prevention and rehousing
It is important to remember that the three main components are not discrete and
separate areas of activity. There is considerable overlap between the components
and all three must be properly integrated into a coordinated and strategic response.
The following sections explore the different elements of prevention, emergency
services and accommodation and supports. In each case, a conceptual framework
is presented, with concrete examples to illustrate the application of each element.
31
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness
1.3
4.0
What do we Know and What can we Do?
Preventing youth homelessness means stopping young people from becoming
homeless in the first place. While it is safe to say that many Canadians now ‘get’
the idea that homelessness prevention is a good idea, it is often harder to pin
down exactly what this means or what it looks like. In this section, we present
a framework for preventing youth homelessness that looks at three key areas
of activity. The first is primary prevention, which focuses on working upstream
to address factors that increase the risk of youth homelessness and which can
support enhancing protective factors that increase resilience. Key here is the
importance of working with families and getting into schools. Second, there
is a need for systems prevention, so we can stop the flow of young people
from mental health care, child protection and corrections into homelessness.
Third is a set of early intervention strategies designed to support young people
and their families when they are imminently at risk of becoming, or have just
become, homeless. For each part of the prevention framework, useful examples
of programs and strategies are used to illustrate how this can be done and to
provide examples that can be adapted in other contexts.
Primary Prevention
Page 34
Systems Prevention
Page 40
Early Intervention
Page 45
32
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ A Framework for Prevention
4.1
A Framework for Prevention
The most successful and strategic approaches to youth
homelessness invest heavily in prevention. Both the UK
and Australia have a strong focus on prevention. As this is a
central theme (and paradigm shift) in the US government’s
new plan to end homelessness, this will also likely be a key
feature of their plan to end youth homelessness. In all cases,
a strong prevention approach requires a coordinated and
strategic systems approach and must necessarily engage,
include and mandate action from mainstream systems and
departments of government, as well as the homelessness
sector. No solution to end youth homelessness can or should
depend only on the efforts of those in the homelessness
sector.
Lest we think that we will forever be behind other nations
in this regard, it is important to note that the adoption of
prevention frameworks in the US, UK and Australia all began
with a recognition that things need to change. The evolution
and conceptual framing of prevention-based approaches
is built upon experimentation, innovation and research
and was underpinned by important legislative and policy
shifts. In the UK, Hal Pawson has written extensively on the
meaning of prevention and the roles and responsibilities
of different sectors in implementing a successful strategy
(Pawson, 2007; Pawson et al., 2006; 2007). Legislation
such as the Homelessness Act (Parliament of the United
Kingdom, 2002) and the Children’s Act (Parliament of the
United Kingdom, 2004) also emphasized the need for a
prevention focus. Evaluative studies of youth homelessness
prevention programs, such as the ‘Safe in the City’ program,
offered evidence-based insights into what works (Dickens
& Woodfield, 2004). Quilgars’ extensive research adds
additional conceptual knowledge about how to think about
preventing youth homelessness, as well as an evidence base
that identifies and highlights program effectiveness (Quilgars
et al., 2008; 2011). In Australia, MacKenzie and Chamberlain
(2004; 2006; National Youth Commission, 2008) played a major
role in articulating the importance of family connections and
mediation, early intervention and the role of schools. The
extensive program development and evaluation of Australia’s
'Reconnect' program (see box page 60) also made a major
contribution to the understanding of the prevention of youth
homelessness and the role of schools (Evans & Shaver,
2001; Ryan & Beauchamp, 2003). In the US, Culhane et al.,
(2010) have written a seminal document for the United States
Interagency Council on Homelessness outlining the meaning
of homelessness prevention, as well as the challenges to
program implementation and outcomes measurement. These
resources are influential in shaping strategic responses and
help point the way to how we might think about preventing
youth homelessness in Canada.
Homelessness prevention approaches are typically based
on a public health paradigm, which looks at three levels of
preventive interventions: primary, secondary and tertiary
(Shinn et al., 2001; Burt et al., 2006; Culhane et al., 2010). The
goal of primary prevention is to ‘work upstream’ to reduce
risks and typically involves universal interventions directed
at whole communities, as well as targeted interventions
for ‘at risk’ communities. With regards to homelessness,
this could include information campaigns and educational
programs, as well as strategic interventions designed to
help address problems that may eventually contribute to
homelessness, well before they arise. Secondary prevention
is intended to identify and address a problem or condition at
an early stage. In thinking about homelessness, this typically
means strategies that target people who are clearly at risk of
becoming, or who have recently become, homeless. Tertiary
prevention is intended to slow the progression of and treat
a condition and through rehabilitation, to reduce recurrence
of the problem. In homelessness, this refers to emergency
services, employment and housing strategies designed to
support people who are moving out of homelessness and
enhance their housing stability. As Culhane points out, these
three categories should not be considered discrete, but more
accurately, should exist along a continuum (Culhane et al.,
2010).
The framework for preventing youth homelessness presented
here (Diagram 6, below) uses the public health model of
prevention as a starting point, but modifies the model to
focus on three interconnected domains related to youth
homelessness prevention: primary prevention, systems
prevention and early intervention. As will be seen, prevention,
as considered within this framework, necessarily involves
addressing the personal and structural factors that contribute
to a young person becoming homelessness.
PRIMARY
PREVENTION
SYSTEMS
PREVENTION
EARLY
INTERVENTION
Diagram 6
A Framework for Preventing
Youth Homelessness
33
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Primary Prevention
4.2
Primary Prevention
It is commonly understood that it is preferable to prevent
any social or health problem from occurring than it is
to reverse it after it has occurred. The goal of primary
prevention is to work upstream to protect individuals and
families by addressing the root causes of homelessness,
well before there is a high risk of becoming homeless. The
main responsibility for the primary prevention of youth
homelessness lies well outside the homelessness sector
and includes institutions and sectors that can potentially
have a significant impact on the lives of children, youth and
families.
Youth homelessness prevention addresses the structural
factors that contribute to youth and family homelessness,
including poverty, lack of affordable housing, racism and
discrimination, addictions and mental health issues within
the household and for young people, a lack of educational
engagement and achievement.
A focus on prevention should be directed at enhancing
protective factors for and resilience of, young people.
Protective factors include a person’s individual qualities and
personality traits that help them persevere in the face of
stress, traumatic events or other problems (Smokowski et
al., 1999; Crosnoe et al., 2002; Bender, 2007; Gilligan, 2000;
Ungar, 2004). Protective factors help reduce or mitigate
risk, ultimately contribute to health and well-being and
may include decision-making and planning skills, as well as
higher levels of self-esteem (Lightfoot et al., 2011), positive
family and peer relations, engagement in school and
other meaningful activities and lower levels of drug use or
criminal involvement (Thompson, 2005). Protective factors
can contribute to and enhance resilience, which:
“is the likely outcome of a child’s both having qualities
that are inherently protective (e.g. intelligence and
positive coping skills) and having access to resources
and networks of support that promote and help maintain
a process of healing and psychological wellness.”
(Herrenkohl, 2008:94).
Prevention strategies which involve families, schools and
communities, enhance protective factors in youth by
building problem-solving skills, supporting engagement
in meaningful activities, strengthening educational and
community engagement and reducing family conflict.
9
These factors have been drawn from a number of sources,
including: Smokowski et al., 1999; Crosnoe et al., 2002; Bender,
2007; Gilligan, 2000; Ungar, 2004Thompson, 2005; Herrenkohl,
2008; Lightfoot et al., 2011; O’Rourke, 2012.
34
Primary prevention also addresses discrimination. We
know that some racialized minorities–including black and
Aboriginal youth–are over-represented within the homeless
youth population. Racism limits people’s opportunities in
education and employment (amongst other spheres) and
thereby undermines young people’s efforts to become
independent.
We also know that a high percentage of homeless youth
report being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered,
transsexual or queer, suggesting that the ‘coming out’
process, as well as bullying, can lead to the estrangement
of young people from their families and communities. So
while anti-discrimination work may on the surface seem a
bit removed from youth homelessness prevention, it is in
fact important.
Finally, youth homelessness prevention must necessarily
address childhood abuse and neglect. In other words, a
range of effective child protection interventions and family
supports are a necessary part of any strategy to address
youth homelessness. Two key areas need to be targeted in
primary prevention strategies: the family and the school.
Protective Factors for Preventing Youth Homelessness 9
Personal and Individual Factors
- Higher levels of problem solving,
decision making and coping skills
- Higher levels of goal setting and planning skills
- Positive self esteem and feelings of self worth
- Age (older)
- Less likelihood of multiple problems
- Lower levels of criminal involvement
- Lower levels of substance abuse
Interpersonal and Relational Factors
- Positive connections and support from some
family members and positive communication
- Positive relationships with adult role models
- Access to support systems
- Positive relations with other caring, non-abusive adults
- Positive peer connections
- Feeling valued by others
Community and organizational factors
- Youth role in decision-making
- Strong commitment to and engagement with school
- Engagement in meaningful activities and
programs (creative, sports, recreation) and
opportunities to be useful to others.
- Youth-friendly spaces
- Safety at home, school and in the neighbourhood
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Primary Prevention
4.2
A
Working with Families
It should go without saying that in supporting the transition of young people
to adulthood, family matters. Yet, because histories of family conflict and/
or abuse are so prevalent amongst street youth, the response of the sector is
often to ignore family as part of the solution to youth homelessness (Winland
et al., 2010; Winland, 2013). In fact, many services operate on the assumption
that young people need to be protected–and isolated–from their families.
Family gets framed as being ‘part of the past’, rather than as a resource
that young people can and should draw on as they move forward.
In preventing youth homelessness, there is a need for more proactive work
with families in order to address the factors that lead to conflict and more
seriously, abuse. A young person is in many ways a product of their childhood
and it behooves us as a society to address the harms that undermine families
and healthy childhood and adolescent development. While those who are
‘chronically disconnected’ may have few familial resources to draw on, for
those who are ‘temporarily disconnected’ or even ‘unstably connected’,
there is an opportunity to draw families in as part of the solution.
There are several components to this focus on early intervention,
including a range of parental supports and education strategies:
Connecting families with resources and supports
Strengthening anger management and conflict resolution skills within families
Building foster parent skills and healthy childhood development
Ensuring young people have access to early childhood education, adequate
nutrition and enriched engagement (arts, sports)
5. Promoting awareness of brain and child development
1.
2.
3.
4.
These programs and interventions of this nature, are often delivered through
community-based family supports, because this is where young people and their
families are. The idea is to connect families to community resources, promote
positive parenting and enhance parents’ capacity to care for their children.
Successful approaches often rely on “home visits” that bring the supports
directly to parents and families and/or work through schools. This should include
working with young (teen) parents, including those who have experienced
homelessness. Such supports must necessarily be culturally sensitive, as
linguistic and cultural differences can present barriers to accessing supports.
35
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Primary Prevention
4.2
B
Working in Schools
Virtually every young person who becomes homeless was once in school.
Moreover, educators are often the first adults outside of the family to
suspect or become aware of underlying problems that may lead to youth
homelessness. Whether this means bullying, educational disengagement,
signs of abuse, trauma and/or family conflict, teachers are often able to
identify young people at risk. The problems begin when teachers lack
the knowledge base, resources or supports in order to intervene.
The prevention strategies that address youth homelessness in Australia
and the UK recognize the central role that schools play in young people’s
lives. In communities across both countries, governments support a number
of programs and resources that are delivered by non-profit organizations
in schools and community centres. In Australia, the government funded
Reconnect Program delivers education and prevention services to young
people in schools (see box page 53). In the UK, community-based organizations
develop and implement programs, working within a prevention framework
supported and funded by the central government. Importantly, this prevention
work begins in schools and targets youth even before they turn 16.
Key to this work is to enhance a young person’s protective factors and personal
development, thus making them more resilient. This means helping young
people develop more effective problem-solving and conflict resolution skills and
supporting programming that enhances educational engagement. In other cases,
there is an active effort to engage parents and enhance their parenting skills.
36
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Primary Prevention
4.2
→ (B) Working in Schools
Alone in London
The Schools Work project operated by Alone in London
(UK) is aimed at young people (aged 11 to 18), in order
to help them understand and address conflict issues,
whether they are occurring at home or at school. The
aim of the project is to: a) prevent family breakdown
and youth homelessness, b) provide crisis intervention,
c) support and listen to young people and d) ensure
that long-term support is available.
“The schools we work in are in inner London boroughs,
(where young people) experience not only family
conflicts but conflicts within their local communities,
so for example they might be involved in local gangs,
other issues they might face is that they can’t speak
English as a first language, there will be cultural
problems between the peers themselves such as
bullying or racism. … The sessions we do in the school
are on “What is homelessness? What are the causes?
And with that we do conflict resolution skills so we give
them something concrete to learn about and take away
with them, so the resolution isn’t just about family
conflict but also peer conflict which would include
things like listening skills, managing your anger a little
bit better, communication blockers and things like that.
At the end of the session we leave them an open forum
for them to self refer, should they wish to.”
Safe Place is a national youth outreach program in
the United States that focuses on educating young
people about the dangers of life on the streets and
also provides supports and interventions for young
people who are at imminent risk of homelessness. The
‘safe place’ sign helps identify Safe Place locations,
which are typically distributed in communities that
are accessible to young people, such as schools, fire
stations, libraries, grocery and convenience stores,
public transit, YMCAs and other appropriate public
buildings. When a young person goes to a Safe
Place and makes contact with an employee, they are
provided with a quiet comfortable place to wait while
the employee contacts a Safe Place agency. Trained
staff (volunteers and paid staff members) meet the
young person and will help them access counselling,
supports, a place to stay or other resources, depending
on their needs. Once a plan is in place, the family will
be contacted and efforts are made to provide families
with help and professional referrals. Young people find
out about Safe Place through presentations in schools,
word of mouth, social media and public service
announcements.
For more information:
http://nationalsafeplace.org/
Aneesha Dawoojee, Family Mediation & Schools Work Manager
(Smith & Deutschman (2010)).
To find out more:
http://www.aloneinlondon.org/aloneinlondon/services/
schools-work-project,1666,LA.html
37
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Primary Prevention
4.2
→ (B) Working in Schools
Finally, there are programs designed to provide information
about homelessness, help people work through and
identify risks (both students and teachers) and inform
them of available supports if ever they are in crisis.
These programs also serve another purpose: because
they impart information about youth homelessness,
they become an early warning system and may serve
to get young people and their families to self-identify
and report a need for support. The presence of agencies
in schools also provides teachers with key points of
contact when they suspect something is wrong.
Furthermore, Quilgars et al., (2008) report that these
programs are generally well received and highly effective.
They are particularly well received when there is a peereducator component to the work. The Schools Training
and Mentoring Project (STaMP), operated by St. Basils
in Birmingham (UK) targets older teens and includes
workshops on the harsh realities of being homeless. The
STaMP program also provides school staff with robust
assessment tools to help them make a determination
of someone’s risk of homelessness. When they identify
someone deemed to be at risk, they are able to refer
the young person to the STaMP project, where the
young person will be linked to a trained peer mentor
who has direct experience of homelessness (the peers
are trained and given a lot of back-up). The mentoring
relationship can then be established and nourished
and the mentor can help the young person look at a
number of options and links to appropriate resources.
Homeless Hub
Homelessness Curriculum for Teachers and Students
Homelessness as a topic can provide educators and
students many opportunities to learn, reflect and
take action on an important issue that affects every
community. The Homeless Hub offers a range of free
resources for primary, intermediate and secondary
teachers. This includes lesson plans across a number of
subject areas, backgrounders, supplementary resources
such as videos and resources for students. The purpose
of these education materials is to raise awareness of
homelessness and to inspire individuals, classrooms
and schools into action. It is worth considering how
these resources might be used (and expanded) as part
of a broader school-based prevention strategy.
Resources include:
Lesson Plans
- Units for Primary grades
- Units for Secondary grades
- Getting ready
- Teaching children who are homeless
- Examples of student work
- Multimedia resources
For Students
- Art, videos, music
- Factsheets
- Research
- Personal stories
Curriculum resources can
be obtained for FREE on
the Homeless Hub:
www.homelesshub.ca
In their review of preventive strategies in the UK, Quilgars et al.,
(2008), argued that such programs provide a means to:
1 “increase young people’s awareness of the ‘harsh realities’ of homelessness
and dispel myths about the availability of social housing;”
2 “challenge stereotypes about homeless people, particularly regarding their
culpability;”
3 “educate young people about the range of housing options available to them
after leaving home and raise awareness of help available;”
4 “emphasize young people’s responsibilities with regard to housing;”and
5 “teach conflict resolution skills that may be applied within and beyond the
home and school.”
(Quilgars et al., 2008:68)
38
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary
(BGCC)
The Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary
(BGCC) offer eight programs targeting young
people who are homeless or who are at risk
of homelessness. These programs are all part
of an integrated service model, that includes
an emergency shelter, transitional housing
and a Housing First program. One of the
key innovations of the BGCC has been the
degree to which they integrate prevention
into their overall organization philosophy
and through specific programs they offer.
Some of these include:
Script
This program offers assessment, referral and case
management to young people who are at risk of or are
currently experiencing homelessness. The program focuses
on building positive relationships based on respect, support
and empowerment through a client-centred, strength-based
case management model. Young people are provided
ongoing coaching and mentorship, focusing on enhancing
motivation, taking responsibility, self care and living skills,
managing money, personal administration, social networks
and relationships, drug and alcohol misuse and physical,
mental and emotional health. Young people are identified
either through the program’s outreach and engagement
strategy, or they reach the program through the 828-HOPE
Assessment and Referral service, which helps match the
young person and their family with the supports they need.
An assessment and referral worker is available to meet
face-to-face with the young person within 48 hours.
39
Elements
The overarching goal of the Elements Project is to
divert youth from homelessness by enhancing family
functioning so that the family can support the youth
through adolescence and into a self-sufficient adulthood.
“We went in this direction when our data started to
show that many young people in the shelter system
were still connected to family in some way and that
given the right supports in accessing mental health,
addiction, education and employment, they were able
to strengthen relationships with their family and even
move back in some cases”.
(Kim Wirth, BGCC)
Young people and families are identified through a range of
referral sources, including Script, emergency youth shelters,
schools, police and justice workers, Children’s Services,
health professionals, youth-serving support workers, selfreferrals and families that make contact with BGCC. A Family
Support Worker works with young people aged 12-24 and
their families to improve family functioning and divert youth
from homelessness. The program uses a strength-based,
family systems perspective. The Family Support Workers
offers relationship-based intensive case management
including assessment, coaching and education, system
navigation, referral and advocacy. The level and intensity
of support will vary based on identified need and over
time the intensity of supports is intended to decrease.
The program integrates evaluation and has demonstrated
improved understanding and relationships within the
family; an 85% of youth at conclusion of service showed a
decrease in risk behaviour using the Child and Adolescent
Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS) (Wirth, 2013).
“It is my belief that nobody wakes up one day and
decides to be a bad parent. It’s more likely a culmination
of a series of risks and challenges and in the end they
struggle and relationships can break down, with families
and young people feeling they have no other option
(than to leave). We needed to give them a better option”.
(Kim Wirth, BGCC)
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Systems Prevention
4.3
Systems Prevention
Stopping the flow of young people from state care into homelessness should be
a priority for any youth homelessness strategy. It is well understood that many
young people become homeless upon leaving the care of child protection services
(whether they leave by choice or ‘age out’) or when discharged from corrections,
or mental health services, without adequate plans for housing and other supports.
Systems Prevention means implementing strategies designed to ensure that
people are not discharged into homelessness.
Transitions from Child Protection
Research consistently points to the high percentage of
homeless youth who have had some involvement with
child protection services, including foster care, group
home placements or youth custodial centres (Dworsky &
Courtney, 2009; Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; Gaetz, 2002; Gaetz,
O’Grady & Buccieri, 2009; Karabanow, 2004; Karabanow
& Naylor, 2013; Raising the Roof, 2009; Serge et al., 2002).
For instance, in three separate studies, the percentage of
homeless youth who reported involvement with foster care
or group homes ranged from 41 to 43 percent (Gaetz &
O’Grady, 2002; Gaetz, 2002; Gaetz, O’Grady & Buccieri, 2010).
It is both the experience of being in child protection and the
transitions from protection to independence, that account
for many of these problems. Some young people choose to
leave because of bad experiences and inadequate support
in group homes or in foster care. Other youth simply ‘age
out’10 of the foster care system and are left to fend for
themselves, lacking necessary resources and never having
been prepared for independent living at such a young age.
Difficult transitions from care often result in a range of
negative outcomes, such as homelessness, unemployment,
lack of educational engagement and achievement,
involvement in corrections, lack of skills and potentially,
a life of poverty. Many young people who leave care fail
to make the transition to independent living because of
underdeveloped living skills, inadequate education, lower
levels of physical and emotional well-being and lack of
supports and resources that most young people rely on
when moving into adulthood (Courtney et al., 2005).
It is also important to note that in many jurisdictions,
child protection legislation has not kept pace with the
social and economic changes that make it much more
difficult for young people to live independently at an
early age. As discussed in Section 2, over 40% of young
40
Systems prevention
means ensuring that
young people are
not discharged into
homelessness when they
leave the care of child
protection services, or
institutional settings such
as detention or mental
health services.
Canadians (between the ages of 20 and 29) live with their
parents because of the high cost of housing, poor labour
market prospects and the need for additional educational
qualifications. Child protection services that cut off support
for young people at the age of 18, or even 21, leave
young people in jeopardy and at risk of homelessness.
Different countries have addressed these challenges in
different ways. The US government enacted the Independent
Living Program in 1986 and Title I of the Foster Care
Independence Act of 1999. These programs are designed
to help older youth who are leaving care develop the life
skills and habits necessary for independent living. States
are required to fund follow-up services for young people
who have aged out of care; of those funds up to 30% are
earmarked for supportive housing. These acts have been
very successful and resulted in the implementation of
independent living programs across the country (Courtney
et al., 2001; Montgomery et al., 2006). In addition, the
American Bar Association has also produced examples
of Model Reforms to Child Protection laws that can be
adapted at the State level (Horton-Newell et al., 2010).
The UK has also attempted to address the problematic
discharge of children and youth from care to homelessness
through legislation and key reforms to child welfare. After
extensive review (Biehal et al., 1995) child welfare services
were mandated to provide support for young people up to
the age of 18 and in some cases up to 21, in order to support
a smooth transition from care. A key piece of legislation
10
In Canada, child protection legislation is a provincial
responsibility and there are significant jurisdictional differences
meaning that the actual age at which the State remains responsible
for young people in care varies from province to province. In
Ontario, for instance, young people ‘age out’ at 18, but can also
voluntarily withdraw from care at 16.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Systems Prevention
4.3
→ Transitions from Child Protection
was the Children (Leaving Care) Act of 2000, which was
further reinforced by the Homelessness Act of 2002 and
the Children’s Act of 2004, which prioritized the need for
services and support for young people exiting the child welfare
system. The Children (Leaving Care) Act ensured that local
governments were directly responsible for youth aged 16 and
older (up to the age of 18) who left care. Three key supports
included: 1) benefits–young people living independently are
entitled to income supplements, 2) assessment–to be done
when the young person reaches 16, to aid with the transition
process and 3) planning–young people are to be assigned
personal advisors, who would help establish a ‘pathway
plan’ that lasted until the young person reached 21 years of
age (to be reviewed with the young person at least every six
months). In commenting on the legislation in the context of an
international review of best practices, Reid (2007) suggests:
“This legislation is effective because it targets core
concerns for youth leaving care such as housing,
education and employment, finances and social support
with flexible approaches to engage youth in the decisionmaking processes. The legislation also requires agencies
to work cooperatively with each other to meet the needs of
youth”
(Reid, 2007:44)
In Australia, child protection legislation, policies and
practices are the responsibility of community services in
each state and territory. Different jurisdictions have different
programs and some are supported at the national level.
Young people at risk of leaving care, either because they
‘aged out’ or left due to problems with their foster care
experience, are offered a more intensive form of support,
which is often referred to as the ‘Lead Tenant’ program
(Australian Senate Community Affairs Committee, 2005).
This model incorporates elements of treatment foster
care, where specially trained caregivers are recruited (and
receive higher than usual remuneration) to provide intensive
placement support and wrap-around services (Reid, C. 2007).
Youth are able to stay in the program from 12 months to 24
months. Finally, the Transition to Independent Living
Allowance (http://www.tila.org.au/) is a national program
that provides particularly vulnerable youth who have left
care up to $1,000 a month in support for an additional year.
In Canada, child protection is a provincial responsibility,
with legislation and practice varying from province to
province. Indeed, many provinces continually update their
legislation. The recent Blueprint for Fundamental Change
to Ontario’s Child Welfare System outlined a number of key
recommendations from former crown wards for updating
provincial legislation (Youth Leaving Care Working Group,
2013). Irwin Elman, director of the Office for the Provincial
Advocate for Children and Youth, argues that effective
reforms, including extending the age of child welfare support
to 25, would cost about 26 million dollars, but see a savings
of 132 million dollars over 40 years (Monsebratten, 2013).
An effective response to youth homelessness must necessarily incorporate
reforms to child protection legislation and services. In considering what is
known about reforming child protection internationally and in light of the
recommendations of the Ontario Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth it
is proposed that effective reforms should include the following elements:
Child protection legislation and policy should:
- Raise the age to which young people are entitled to care
and support to at least 21, or if in school, until 25.
- Allow young people access to child protection
services up to the age of 18.
- Allow young people who leave care to reenter, if desired.
- Ensure that young people have access to and are aware of
funding for post-secondary education beyond the age of 18.
- Provide transitional funding to help young people who have
left care obtain stable housing.
41
Child protection services should:
- Ensure that all transition plans are coordinated
and integrated and information is shared with
parents (where relevant) and across sectors.
- Actively assist youth in finding affordable housing.
- Coordinate with public education systems to
facilitate stronger student engagement.
- Provide young people with choices and actively involve them in
the transition process to promote and support self-advocacy.
- Provide clear alternatives outside the system for young
people who choose to leave care because of problematic
experiences in foster care or group homes.These alternatives
should necessarily include access to housing and supports.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Systems Prevention
4.3
Leaving Corrections and Effective Discharge Planning
We know from extensive research that young people who
are homeless are on average more criminally involved
than domiciled youth (Baron, 2013; Hagan & McCarthy,
1997; Tanner & Wortley, 2002) and at the same time, receive
much more police attention regardless of their criminal
involvement (O’Grady et al., 2011; 2013). Many become
involved with the criminal justice system, either as juvenile
offenders or as young adults. A growing body of Canadian
research focuses on the bidirectional relationship between
homelessness and prison (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2006; 2009;
Novac et al., 2006; 2007; Kellen et al., 2010). That is, people
who are homeless are more likely to become imprisoned
and are over-represented in the prison population.
Additionally, because of the inadequacy of discharge
planning and reintegration policies and practices, both
for those who are convicted and those awaiting trial on
remand, many ex-prisoners are discharged directly into
homelessness. Without proper and adequate transitional
support (including housing), there is a risk of reoffending
and/or enduring homelessness (DeLisi, 2000; Gowan, 2002;
Kushel et al., 2005; Metraux & Culhane, 2004; Vitelli, 1993).
While research shows that attention to discharge planning
and support for reintegration to independent living,
for people leaving corrections has benefits in terms of
reduced recidivism, increased public safety and reduced
homelessness (Harrison, 2001; Visher & Travis, 2003;
Petersilia, 2001a;b; Travis & Petersilia, 2001), the evidence
often collides with ‘get tough on crime’ policies that, in a
sense, achieve the opposite (this is particularly important
in the Canadian context, where we are implementing
policies that follow from the mistakes made in the United
States from the 1970s to 1990s).
Despite this history, there are programs that provide
support based on an understanding of the challenges
faced by young offenders upon reintegration. In the
United States, Intensive Aftercare programs for juvenile
offenders were first introduced by the Department of
Justice in the 1970s to provide high-risk young offenders
with appropriate supervision and services (Altschuler &
Armstrong, 1994). Using a ‘case management’ approach,
offenders are assessed and individualized case plans
are developed, which ideally incorporate family and
community perspectives in addition to those of the young
person and lay out practical approaches for meeting goals.
Five key principles guide such interventions:
1. Preparing youth for progressively increased
responsibility and freedom in the community;
2. Facilitating youth-community interaction and
involvement;
3. Working with youth and targeted community
support systems on traits needed for constructive
interaction and successful community adjustment;
4. Developing new resources and supports; and
5. Monitoring and testing the youth and the community
on their ability to interact productively (United States
Department of Health and Human Services, 2007).
Ensuring that young people discharged from prison have
access to safe affordable housing not only improves their
life chances, but also benefits communities, as recidivism
rates decline. In other words, providing housing for
released young offenders is both a housing and crime
reduction issue. In Canada, Wood’s Homes and the Calgary
John Howard Society are piloting an innovative program
for young offenders that incorporates a Housing First
philosophy.11
11
Housing First (Gaetz,S., Scott, F. & Gulliver,T. (Eds.)
(2013): Housing First in Canada: Supporting Communities to
End Homelessness. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research
Network Press) is a well established and evaluated response
to homelessness (Goering et al., 2012; Tsemberis et al, 2004;
Waegemakers-Schiff & Rook, 2012; Yanos et al., 2004) that involves
providing people with housing without conditions as soon as
possible and then giving them the necessary supports they need
to sustain their housing and make the transition to independence.
This approach will be discussed in more detail in Section Five.
42
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Roofs for Youth
Wood's Homes & Calgary John Howard Society
The Roofs For Youth Project is a multi-agency youth
homelessness prevention strategy that targets youth who
are transitioning from corrections and are “viewed as
disenfranchised in that they are without family supports and
do not have status with Child and Family Services and they
are further marginalized in that they do not qualify for many of
the services available to adults” (Woods Homes, 2012:2). These
youth are considered extremely vulnerable to homelessness
and the continuous cycle between detention and the streets.
The Wood’s Homes program design includes:
Initial Assessment
Building on solid relationships with the Calgary Young
Offenders Centre, probation services and agency partners,
Roofs receives referrals, completes initial assessments and
attempts to develop deep connections, which are intended
to continue once the youth are released into the community.
Case Management
After an initial assessment, Roofs For Youth develops an
individualized and client-centered case management plan
based on client need and circumstances. They adopt a
‘positive youth development’ perspective that focuses on
a youth’s strengths and assets and identifies family and
support networks, as well as risk factors. The partnership
model is designed to enmesh young people within a
‘system of care’ and to help them access specialized
services and resources (addictions, mental health,
Aboriginal supports, etc.) based on identified need.
Housing
The program incorporates a Housing First scattered site
model and provides young people with case management,
financial support, housing and clinical support (mental
health and addictions). The program adopts a ‘zero discharge
into homelessness’ policy and works with youth to find
appropriate accommodation and ensure that options are
available outside of the shelter system if housing breaks
down.
43
Skills Building
Drawing from a positive youth development framework and
using cognitive behavioural interventions the program:
1. Identifies the youth’s personal strengths in order to
build self-esteem and a positive sense of self.
2. Works to improve the youth’s communication and
problem solving skills.
3. Assists the youth to access training or educational
opportunities.
Leveraging Natural Supports
This is important because the program seeks to leverage
the natural supports the young person may possess
(family, friends and caring adults) and wherever possible,
involve family and provide supports to help mediate and
nurture effective family relationships. The program also
seeks to facilitate “pro-social experiences, activities and
behaviours through positive relationships with peers and
adults who can also serve as role-models or mentors”
(Woods Homes, 2012:20). At the same time, this means
minimizing contact with other young offenders.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Systems Prevention
4.3
Discharge Support from Hospital and Mental Health Facilities
Those who work in the homelessness sector are well
aware that individuals are often discharged from hospitals
and mental health facilities into homelessness. There are
two main consequences to this. First, the mental health
and well-being of such individuals is likely to worsen if
discharged into homelessness rather than housing and
second, staff in emergency shelters and day programs are
not well-equipped to provide necessary and appropriate
supports for people in such situations.
Cheryl Forchuk is a leading researcher on transitions
from psychiatric wards into homelessness, in terms of
understanding both the consequences for individuals who
experience this and effective intervention models that
ensure successful transitions to the community through
housing and supports.
According to Forchuk, emergency shelters–even well run
shelters–are “not appropriate places for recovery from
mental illnesses” (Forchuk et al., 2006:301). Many of the
problems we associate with shelters–lack of privacy, low
resident/staff ratios, exposure to drugs and the sex trade,
real or perceived threats to safety, being around others
who are ill or who have mental health problems and in
some cases overcrowding–can exacerbate problems for
psychiatric survivors. Unfortunately, this happens all too
often. In their study of people discharged from psychiatric
wards in London–a mid-sized Canadian city–they found that
167 of 1,588 (10.5%) individuals were discharged with no
fixed address in a single year (Forchuk et al., 2006). Data
from local emergency shelters showed the number to be
even higher at 194. Structural factors contribute to this
situation, including a trend towards shorter stays in hospital
as an in-patient and a dramatic reduction in the availability
of affordable housing in most Canadian cities. For young
people under the age of 25, structural barriers include the
difficulty in obtaining a living wage and full-time hours.
Research from Canada and the United States suggests
that necessary reforms and interventions can dramatically
reduce the risk of homelessness for those discharged from
mental health facilities, with a resultant improvement
in mental health and well-being (Forchuk et al., 2008;
2011; Herman et al., 2011; Kasprow & Rosenheck, 2007;
Goldfinger et al., 1999; Susser et al., 1997). A randomized
control trial by Herman et al., (2011) demonstrates that
Critical Time Interventions (CTI) upon discharge are
designed to:
“prevent recurrent homelessness and other adverse
outcomes following discharge in two ways: by
strengthening the individual's long-term ties to services,
family and friends; and by providing emotional and
practical support during the critical time of transition.
An important aspect of CTI is that post-discharge
services are delivered by a worker who has established
a relationship with the client before discharge.”
(Herman et al., 2011:2)
In a London, Ontario, pilot study, patients at risk of being
discharged with ‘no fixed address’ were provided with
a timely intervention (Forchuk et al., 2008; 2011). This
included: 1) assessment and immediate response to
client need (it is argued that a determination of risk of
homelessness should be made early, upon admittance);
2) goal planning and advocacy to coordinate supports; 3)
assistance in finding affordable housing, 4) a streamlined
process (including fast tracking) so that individuals could
receive government benefits to pay for first and last
month’s rent.
The results of this study and others clearly demonstrate
that targeted and relatively brief support has a substantial
and lasting impact on the risk of becoming homeless for
those discharged from mental health facilities.
In Alberta, the province is also piloting similar policies
and protocols to reduce the likelihood that people
are discharged from in-patient mental health care
into homelessness. This work demonstrates that it is
possible to implement more effective interventions that
can contribute to thoughtful, respectful and effective
responses to homelessness and the needs of mental
health consumer- survivors.
44
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
Early Intervention
The importance of early intervention cannot be underestimated. This is true
not only when considering discharge from institutional settings, but in other
contexts, as well. Early intervention means identifying and addressing the
physical, emotional, material, interpersonal, social and educational needs of
young people who are at imminent risk of becoming, or who have just become,
homeless. This is the point at which prevention and emergency services intersect,
for early intervention strategies can take place before a youth becomes homeless
(or when one is at imminent risk) or immediately after. So, while some of these
interventions will be delivered by emergency services, they are considered
preventive in that the goal is to provide proper supports so that a person’s
experience of homelessness is as short as possible and hopefully non-recurrent.
Early intervention refers
to strategies designed to
address the immediate risk of
homelessness, provide young
people and their families with
necessary supports and enhance
resilience while reducing the
potential for negative outcomes.
The goal is to address the immediate risk of homelessness, provide young
people and their families with necessary supports and enhance resilience while
reducing the potential for negative outcomes. For those who do wind up having
to leave home, early intervention also means reducing the risk of protracted
homelessness (more than a month) for young people.
Diagram 7 (see page 46) identifies four key and interrelated strategies of early
intervention, including: Coordinated Assessment, Case Management, Family
Reconnection and Shelter Diversion. Together, these interventions are designed
to reconcile and support relationships so that young people can move back
home or in with other family members and when this is not possible (for safety
reasons), help them move into independent (and supported) accommodation in a
safe and planned way. The goal is to intervene before a young person is forced to
leave their community and winds up homeless on the streets or in an emergency
shelter. Once on the streets, a young person may be drawn into the street lifestyle
and become entrenched in their homelessness.
45
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
→ Early Intervention
Early intervention strategies such as the one presented here are necessarily
supported by integrated systems-based approaches that facilitate coordinated
engagement. This systems approach is a central feature of the prevention
response to youth homelessness in both Australia and the UK. In both cases,
government funded programs, delivered by the not-for-profit sector, provide
a range of services and supports for young people and their families. It is
important to note that the success of early intervention approaches depends
on integration of the programs and strategies into a ‘system of care’, wherein
services are coordinated and integrated, rather than delivered by agencies that are
disconnected from the larger system. Below is a short description of the central
components of an early intervention strategy.
LIVING WITH PARENTS
OR CAREGIVERS
LIVING
INDEPENDENTLY
IMMINENT RISK
OF HOMELESSNESS
COORDINATED ASSESSMENT
FAMILY
RE-UNIFICATION
CASE MANAGEMENT
FAMILY RECONNECTION
SHELTER DIVERSION
RAPID
RE-HOUSING
(WITH SUPPORTS)
Diagram 7
Early Intervention Framework
46
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
Coordinated Assessment
Coordinated Assessment (also known as Coordinated Intake and in the UK
as Common Assessment) is key to delivering integrated and focused early
interventions for young people at risk of homelessness. It is a standardized
approach to assessing a young person’s current situation, the acuity of their needs
and the services they currently receive and may require in the future. It takes into
account the background factors that contribute to risk and resilience, changes in
acuity and the role parents, caregivers, community and environmental factors play
on the young person’s development. The National Alliance to End Homelessness
in the US argues that coordinated assessment undergirds a more efficient and
effective homelessness response through:
1. Helping people move through the system faster (by reducing the amount of
time people spend moving from program to program before finding the right
match);
2. Reducing new entries into homelessness (by consistently offering prevention
and diversion resources upfront, reducing the number of people entering the
system unnecessarily); and
3. Improving data collection and quality and providing accurate information on
what kind of assistance consumers need. (NAEH, 2012 Coordinated Assessment
Toolkit).
The key to coordinated assessment is to employ it as a system-wide process by
having all agencies use the same assessment framework and instrument in order
to standardize current practices and provide comprehensive and consistent client
information. In the United States, researchers have advocated for coordinated
assessment as key to effective prevention and rapid rehousing programs (Burt,
2007). If a community has adopted a ‘system of care’ approach, measures should
be taken to share the information between agencies and providers¹² and thus
reduce duplication of assessments and enable effective case management, such
that clients get timely access to the most appropriate services based on need. So
while common assessment means that all agencies use the same tool, centralized
intake refers to a pooling of information that different providers can have access
to. This facilitates systems coordination and means that youth won’t have to tell
their story multiple times (and it is important to remember that these stories can
be emotionally difficult to share (traumatic) or stigmatizing (LGBTQ status, criminal
involvement, mental health problems etc.)). This is important, because in larger
cities, young people who are homeless often complain about having to retell their
story upon intake at every new agency.
Coordinated Assessment toolkit
The NAEH has developed this
toolkit to help communities plan
for, implement and evaluate a
coordinated assessment system.
The toolkit is designed to allow
individual communities to
modify and tailor the tools to
fit their individual needs. The
toolkit includes the following
components:
- Planning and Assessment
- Data and Implementation
- Evaluation
Community Examples and
Materials
12
To enable this, communities must
ensure client consent and address privacy
concerns at the legislative and agency
levels.
47
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
Common Assessment Framework in the United Kingdom
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) was designed as
a generic assessment tool to be used by practitioners from
different sectors in England. The CAF is intended to: “help
practitioners working with children, young people and families
to assess children and young people’s additional needs for
earlier and more effective services and develop a common
understanding of those needs and how to work together
to meet them” (CAF–For Practitioners:6). It is considered
a key tool for the coordination of services. The idea is that
everyone who works with young people should know about
the CAF and how to deliver it. The CAF builds upon “Every
Child Matters–Change for Children”, a national framework
to help local communities develop effective and integrated
supports for children and young adults. The CAF consists of:
1. A pre-assessment checklist to help decide who would
benefit from a common assessment
2. A process to enable practitioners in the children and
young people’s workforce to undertake a common
assessment and then act on the results
3. A standard form to record the assessment
4. A delivery plan and review form
Linked with a case management strategy (see below),
the assessment helps identify needs and coordinate
interventions. Implementation of the CAF has been a
challenge in some jurisdictions, due to capacity and
resource issues (Smith and Duckett, 2010). However,
evaluations of the CAF have demonstrated positive service
outcomes, including an improvement in “multi agency
working, information sharing and (a reduction in) referral
rates to local authorities” (Smith and Duckett, 2010:17).
Centralized Intake
Coordinated assessment is often supported by some
form of centralized intake or single point of entry, which
could be the first emergency shelter someone presents
at, a dedicated assessment facility, or through a dispersed
model where people come into contact with key workers
in the system, in schools, community or social service
settings (Gardner et al., 2010). Getting timely information
and supports to young people and their families is crucial,
given that educators and other service providers may not
readily identify young people at the time of crisis. Centralized
intake means that not only is a common assessment used,
but that the information gathered is centralized so multiple
service providers have access to it. The argument is that
homeless services become less fragmented, access is more
seamless and scarce resources are used more effectively.
In the American context, centralized intake and assessment
is often conducted with and supports the use of, the HMIS
48
system. Central intake was a key program requirement
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s 2008 Rapid
Re-Housing for Families demonstration project.¹³
Several communities in the United Kingdom have pioneered
“Single Point Access” information and assessment, an easy
to access hub (via phone or internet) where young people can
get needed information, supports and access to services. As a
system, it relies on a strong communication strategy so that
young people and families know about it (through schools
and community centres, for instance), a good assessment
system (such as CAF) and strong organizational links to
services both within and external to the homelessness
sector. As both a ‘triage’ service and a clearinghouse,
a single point access service ensures consistency of
assessment, a reduction in duplication and an enhanced
and effective evaluation of the appropriateness of services.
Some examples of how this works in the UK include St.
Basil’s “Young Person’s Hub” in Birmingham (United
Kingdom), which provides a single access point for advice,
referrals and intake. Young people can access service
through a 24-hour phone line, via the internet or through
the centre directly (an appointment is typically required).
The Swansea BAYS project (UK)¹⁴ is another example,
where all young people who become homeless (including
young people who are leaving care) receive a joint social
work and housing assessment. They are provided with
appropriate supports based on need. Staff have specialized
training in order to offer appropriate advice and support.
Given advances in technology, the basic principles of
“Single Point Access” could be provided in a more
decentralized fashion through web-based supports and/
or a more diverse range of agencies and services. Such
an approach would require a common assessment
framework, a shared data management system and
a communication and promotion strategy. Ideally it
would be made available through schools, community
centers and other places frequented by young people.
13
The document, “Centralized Intake for Helping People
Experiencing Homelessness: Overview, Community Profiles and
Resources” (Gardner et al., 2010), provides a number of excellent
and detailed case study examples of how to implement such a
program.
14
Once again, it is important to caution the reader that all
case studies or program examples describe what is known at the
time of the writing of the report and that program models, funding
arrangements and organizational dynamics can lead to dramatic
changes in service delivery and outcomes.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
Case Management
The National Case Management Network of Canada (NCMN)
defines case management as:
“[a] collaborative, client-driven process for the
provision of quality health and support services through
the effective and efficient use of resources. Case
management supports the client’s achievement of safe,
realistic and reasonable goals within a complex health,
social and
fiscal environment”
(National Case Management Network of Canada, 2009, p.8).
As part of an early intervention strategy, case management is a
comprehensive and strategic form of service provision whereby
a case worker assesses the needs of the client (and potentially
their family) and, when appropriate, arranges, coordinates and
advocates for delivery and access to a range of programs and
services designed to meet the individual’s needs.
A client-centered case management approach ensures that the
young person has a major say in identifying goals and service
needs and that there is shared accountability. The goal of case
management is to empower young people and promote an
improved quality of life by facilitating timely access to the
necessary supports and thus reduce the risk of homelessness
and/or help young people achieve housing stability.
Case management is well-established in social work and
health care and there are many different approaches and
practices (Milaney, 2011a; Morse, 1998). Case management
can be short-term (as in the Critical Time Intervention) or
long-term and ongoing, dependent upon an identified need
for crisis intervention related to problematic transitions,
or for supports around chronic conditions. Critical Time
Intervention (CTI) models are key to early intervention
practice in that they are designed to prevent recurrent
homelessness and to help people transition to independence
(Baumgartner & Herman, 2012; Schutt et al., 2009; Herman &
Mandiberg, 2010). This is achieved through:
“strengthening the individual’s long-term ties to services,
family and friends; and by providing emotional and
practical support during the critical time of transition. An
important aspect of CTI is that post-discharge services are
delivered by workers who have established relationships
with patients during their institutional stay.”
A case management approach, then, necessarily works best
with a system of care approach, where links are made to
necessary services and supports, based on identified client
need. That is, once a young person becomes homeless, or is
identified as being at risk, they are not simply unleashed into
the emergency services sector. An intake is done, risks are
identified, goals are established and plans are put in place.
Youth therefore become ‘clients’ not of specific agencies,
per se, but rather, of the sector. They are supported from the
moment they are identified as (potentially) homeless, right
through to the solution stage and then after they have either
returned home, or moved into a place of their own if there is
need for continued support.
Case management, of course, requires a willingness on the
part of the young person to participate and the building of
a potentially therapeutic relationship may take time. When
young people become homeless and have very weak links
or engagement with homelessness services, schools or other
supports and are only accessed through outreach and/or day
programs, a period of relationship and trust building may be
required before case management can be usefully implemented.
In reviewing case management as a key component of
strategies to end homelessness, Milaney (2011a; b; 2012)
identified it as a strengths-based team approach with six key
dimensions:
1. Collaboration and cooperation: A true team approach,
involving several people with different backgrounds, skills
and areas of expertise.
2. Right matching of services: Person-centered and based on
the complexity of need.
3. Contextual case management: Interventions must
appropriately take account of age, ability, culture, gender
and sexual orientation. In addition, an understanding
of broader structural factors and personal history (of
violence, sexual abuse or assault, for instance) must
underline strategies and mode of engagement.
4. The right kind of engagement: Building a strong
relationship based on respectful encounters, openness,
listening skills, non-judgmental attitudes and advocacy.
5. Coordinated and well-managed system: Integrating the
intervention into the broader system of care.
6. Evaluation for success: The ongoing and consistent
assessment of case managed supports.
(http://www.criticaltime.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/cti-handout4.pdf)
49
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
→ Case Management
There are different case management tools available that
enable acuity, needs and strengths assessment and assist
with planning. One popular tool is the Outcomes Star (see
box). Another one that is used in some communities in
Canada (such as Hamilton by the Street Youth Planning
Collaborative) is called the Child and Adolescent Needs and
Strengths (CANS). Though not developed specifically for
the homelessness sector (it is used more broadly by case
managers working with children and youth in children’s
services, mental health, juvenile justice and educational
contexts, for instance) as a multi-purpose tool it is designed
to support decision making, including level of care and
service planning, by case managers, young people and
their caregivers. It allows for the identification of both
needs and strengths and is designed to facilitate supports
serving the needs of the young person, rather than forcing
the young person to fit the service. There are a number of
free resources available to support the use of CANS15 and a
‘train the trainer’ approach to education and support builds
community capacity to use the tool and reduces the need for
providers to rely on the expertise of expensive consultants.
An interesting case management practice that
incorporates evaluation is the Outcomes Star,
developed in the UK by St. Mungo’s, a leading Londonbased homelessness serving organization and Triangle
Consulting. The case management emphasis begins
with a client-centred approach and recognition of
both the complexity and diversity of experiences and
challenges that people who experience homelessness
face. In using a ‘stages of change’ model, the Outcomes
Star addresses a number of possible issues that a
client and their case worker agree should be priorities
for change. Specific tool for homeless youth were
developed, which provide young people with a map or
conceptual tool for the journey they are to undertake
and also allow them to plot and monitor their progress.
As an evaluation tool, the Outcomes Star engages
clients and becomes a means of tracking, supporting
and gathering evidence for change. The data from
individual cases can be aggregated to understand and
evaluate program level work, organizational activity
or sector-wide change. A number of agencies in
Canada are exploring its applicability in the Canadian
context and it is also being taken up in Australia.
For more information, go to:
http://www.outcomesstar.org.uk/
15
Resources are available on the following websites:
The Praed Foundation
http://www.praedfoundation.org/About%20the%20CANS.html#Here
Government of Massachusetts Health and Human Services
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/commissions-and-initiatives/cbhi/
child-and-adolescent-needs-and-strengths-cans/
50
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
Family Reunification
The underlying ethos of a family reconnection approach is that family is important
to almost everyone and that a truly effective response to youth homelessness
must consider the role that family–and the potential of reconciling damaged
relationships–can play in helping street youth move forward with their lives. “For
many, if not most street youth, family does matter in some way and … addressing
family issues can help young people move into adulthood in a healthier way and
potentially move out of homelessness.” (Winland et al., 2011:15) . What actually
constitutes a ‘family’ is variable, based on individual experience (growing up with
grandparents, for instance) and cultural contexts. In doing this work the family
should be defined with, or by, the young person. The goal of family reconnection
is to prevent youth homelessness, to rapidly rehouse those who become
homeless and to secure stable housing for youth who have been homeless over
a long period of time. It means much more than merely sending a young person
back home into a context where they may once again be at ‘imminent risk of
homelessness’. Rather, the goal is to break the cycle of homelessness by working
with the youth and their family on the underlying issues leading to conflict. For
the majority of young people who are homeless (those who are ‘temporarily
disconnected’ or ‘unstably connected’), this is a particularly important kind of
intervention to consider and should be an option in every case management plan.
Until recently, the possibility and potential of reconnecting with family has,
unfortunately, rarely been prioritized in the Canadian response to youth
homelessness and in fact, has often been ignored (Winland et al., 2011; Winland,
2013). Emergency services tend to focus on providing refuge for young people
and helping them reach self-sufficiency and independence. This is perhaps not
surprising, nor entirely unreasonable, given that so many homeless youth fled
households characterized by physical, sexual and/or emotional abuse and/or the
child protection system. In such a context, family is often deemed to be part of the
young person’s past and moving home may be neither desirable, nor possible.
While it is easy to dismiss the role of family in the lives of young people who
have had difficult pasts, we need to be careful not to “throw the baby out with
the bathwater”, so to speak. In reframing our understanding of the potential role
of families in the lives of street youth, we need to consider that the families
defined as problematic may themselves be complex and diverse in composition.
So, while a young person may experience conflict (even violence) with one or
more members of their family, there may potentially be important, supportive
and/or redeemable relationships with other family members; individuals that
can play an important role in a young person’s transition to independence. It
is also important to consider that relationships characterized by conflict are
not always irreconcilable and that many underlying conflicts can be addressed
with the right supports and interventions. The point is that even when conflicts
lead to young people leaving home, we should not forego the possibility that
those conflictual relations can improve (Winland et al., 2011; Winland, 2013).
To find out more, read the CHRN
Family Matters report:
www.homelesshub.ca/familymatters
In implementing any
family reconnection
strategy the ultimate
guiding principle is
necessarily the protection
and safety of the young
person.
It is also worth pointing out that the vast majority of homeless youth
fit into the category of “temporarily disconnected” and “unstably
connected”, according to the NAEH typology discussed earlier in the
report. This means that for these young people, there exists some
level of connectedness with at least some family members.
51
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
→ Family Reunification
The effectiveness and underlying logic of program-based
family mediation and reconnection models suggests that a
more ambitious application of the basic tenets of the program
is possible when implemented more broadly at a ‘systems
level’. That is, in contrast to developing an agency-based
program or response, it is possible to approach the issue from
a more integrated early intervention system approach that
includes common assessment, centralized intake and case
management doing this brings together a range of services
and approaches that work across the street youth sector
and ideally, engage with programs, services and institutions
‘upstream’ (that is, before the young person becomes
homeless). No young person should access emergency
shelters and supports without undergoing an assessment
to determine the potential for family reunification.
Scaling up family reunification programming can
thus be seen as a key preventive approach to youth
homelessness. There are several key features to an
integrated, systems level approach to family reconnection.
A Systems level approaches require strong institutional
support by all levels of government, ensuring that family
reconnection programming is widely available across
jurisdictions. In other words, young people should
have access to such interventions wherever they live.
B Programming requires systems-based cross-sectoral
collaboration between child protection services,
the education system, the mental health sector,
housing, settlement and corrections, for instance.
C A prevention and early intervention model
requires an integrated jurisdictional approach with
strong communication links, so that appropriate
and timely interventions can take place.
D Finally, an intervention program such as Family
Reconnect must be widely available–and in some ways
targeted–to young people who are under the age of 16.
The homelessness sector in Canada is largely reactive
and is designed to serve young people who are 16 and
older. A more effective approach would identify and begin
preventive work with young people who are below that
age threshold.
In both Australia and the UK, family connection is not simply a
program model, but more significantly is seen as a philosophy
underlying their response to youth homelessness. The key here
is that family intervention is built in to their integrated systems
approaches and in the case of Australia, has been scaled
up to be a national program (see next page). Both of these
examples point to the possibility of moving beyond a program
based model, to an integrated systems approach in Canada.
52
Eva's Family Reconnect
While there are very innovative and successful
programs in Canada that focus on reconnecting
homeless youth with their families (Kelowna, Calgary
and Halifax, for instance), perhaps the best known
is Eva’s Family Reconnect program located within a
mid-town shelter for homeless youth, in Toronto. The
Family Reconnect program was established with a
mandate to assist young people aged 16-24 interested
in addressing and potentially reconciling differences
with their families (Family Reconnect Program
Strategic Plan, 2009). The foundational principle of
the program is that family is significant in everyone’s
lives and this is equally true for street youth.
The main focus of Eva’s Family Reconnect program
is to offer individual and family support for youth
in the shelter system and those still living in the
community but at risk of becoming homeless.
Staff work with clients to address and potentially
resolve family conflict through individual and family
counselling, referrals to other agencies and services,
psychiatric assessments, psychological assessments
for learning disabilities, accompaniment and advocacy,
for young people who are interested in developing
healthier relationships with their families.
For more information:
Winland et al. (2010) Family Matters: Homeless Youth
and Eva’s Initiatives “Family Reconnect” Program
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Family Reconnect Program
In Australia, the “Reconnect Program” has been in operation since 1999. Though
a government sponsored initiative, the early intervention program is delivered
through community-based services. The goal of Reconnect is to work with young
people when they are identified as ‘at risk’ of homelessness and help them to
stabilize their living situation and ‘improve their level of engagement with family,
work, education and training in their local community” (Australian Government,
2013: Reconnect). The program is a classic example of a systems level approach
to early intervention, in that it is widely available across the country and works
across institutional jurisdictions to provide young people who become–or are at
risk of becoming–homeless with the supports they need to stay at home, or find
alternative supportive living arrangements. There are over 100 Reconnect programs
and some specialize in supporting sub-populations such as Aboriginal youth,
refugees and new immigrants and lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. While funded
by the central government, these programs nevertheless operate through a network
of community-based early intervention services that share the goal of assisting
youth to stabilize their current living situations, as well as improve their level of
engagement and attachments within their community (Australian Government, 2009).
The Reconnect Program targets young people aged
12-18 (and their families) who are homeless, or at
risk of homelessness. The service delivery model
of Australia’s Reconnect program includes:
“a focus on responding quickly when a young person
or family is referred; a ‘toolbox’ of approaches that
include counselling, mediation and practical support;
and collaboration with other service providers. As well as
providing assistance to individual young people and their
families, Reconnect services also provide group programs,
undertake community development projects and work with
other agencies to increase the broader service system’s
capacity to intervene early in youth homelessness.”
(Australian Government, 2003:8)
53
The Reconnect program emphasizes accessibility, a clientcentered orientation and a holistic approach to service
delivery and one that has been extensively evaluated
(Evans & Shaver, 2001; Australian Government, 2003;
2013. In a comprehensive evaluation of the program
(Australian Government, 2003), they identified the
following positive and sustainable outcomes for young
people and their families, including improvements in:
- The stability of young people’s living situations.
- Young people’s reported ability to manage family conflict
and this improvement was sustained over time.
- Parents’ capacity to manage conflict.
- Communication within families.
- Young people’s attitudes to school.
- Young people’s engagement with education and
employment.
- Young people’s engagement with community.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
→ Family Reunification
In the United Kingdom, family reconnection is a feature of their strategic
and integrated approach to youth homelessness and is based on the
philosophy that for most youth, life chances generally improve the longer
they stay with their families and the more ‘planned’ their transition is to living
independently (See Alone in London box for a case study on next page).
The key point of such a preventive approach is that young people and their
families need to be able to make good choices about whether to continue
to live together or apart and if the latter is the case, to ensure that they have
appropriate resources and skilled support in order to avoid homelessness.
“Key elements of ‘what works’ include flexible and client-centered provision,
close liaison with key agencies and building in support from other agencies
when necessary. The need for timely intervention was also highlighted, as was
the need for active promotion of the availability of the service and early contact
with clients on referral.”
(Pawson et al., 2007:14)
Again, reflecting the ‘partnership’ approach of the UK strategy, local governments
are expected to develop interventions that are delivered in collaboration with
key partners including Children's Services, the youth service, the not-for-profit
sector and very importantly, schools. This collaborative, cross-sectoral approach
is seen as necessary in supporting young people and their families and to prevent
homelessness. Most of these programs operate on a referral basis and common
elements of such programs include optional family mediation, parenting support
and housing options counselling. While the goal is to resolve family disputes,
there is also recognition of the necessity of finding suitable accommodation for
young people who are leaving home and who do not intend to, or cannot, return.
The family-based prevention programs in the UK have also been
evaluated. A cost-benefit analysis by DePaul UK projected that an
investment in prevention-based early intervention strategies would
save on average £9,493 ($14,838 Cdn) per case (Insley, 2011a).
54
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Alone in London
In the United Kingdom, Alone in London is a non-profit organization that has been
supporting young people at risk of homelessness between the ages of 16 and 25,
since 1972. Staff and volunteers work across 32 London boroughs and offer the
following services:
- Free telephone advice and assistance for young people.
- A drop-in centre in Hackney for advice and support.
- Family mediation to enable young people to maintain positive relationships.
with parents and other family members.
- Training and employment guidance.
- Homelessness prevention and conflict resolution support and advice for teachers.
As part of their prevention model, they offer young people
and their families mediation services with the goal of
helping resolve conflict. Adopting a client-centred approach,
they engage in mediation if desired by the young person
and support young people and their families to make
informed choices. Recognizing the complexity of family
relationships and the fact that many young people cannot
return home, they nevertheless work to support and sustain
relationships with some family members, which can be
helpful for a young person struggling to live independently.
“There are a lot of mental health difficulties that impact on
family conflict so for example, with parents AND young
people there are a lot of severe and enduring difficulties.
By the time I get referrals generally it’s a complex case, so
you would get young people and parents suffering a long
term depression, anxiety, self esteem issues, which are
also impacted by drug and alcohol abuse. And that impacts
on conflict because people are just that much more tired,
they are much more frustrated and generally finding life
difficult. We have separate one to one sessions if the young
person is homeless or at risk of being homeless and we
also have one to one sessions with parents separately and
Alone in London has an excellent website with information
and resources that could inform efforts to adapt their model:
55
it enables people to have a space where they are able to
think about what has happened. They can stand back and
say “actually, well, it’s gone too far” and very often it doesn’t
get to the process of mediation”. Amanda Singh. Family
Mental Health mediator (Smith & Deutschman, 2010).
In their Impact Report (2010/11) Alone in London reported
the following outcomes from their family mediation work:
- 142 young people received the support of a Family
Mediator to help manage their home situation and their
relationship with family.
- 36 young people were supported to return home or remain
with their families.
- 97 parents were supported to resolve conflict and rebuild
their relationship with their child.
- 106 young people reported improved family relationships
since receiving support.
- 124 young people/parents reported improved conflict
resolution and communication skills.
- 163 young people/parents reported now knowing where
to go to seek help if they find themselves unable to cope.
Email
Web
alone@als.org.uk
http://www.aloneinlondon.org/
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
Shelter Diversion
Shelter diversion refers to the provision of alternative temporary housing options,
supports and interventions designed to reduce the likelihood that young people will
rely on emergency shelters. There are compelling reasons to consider strategies
that help young people avoid this route. Because most small communities do
not have emergency shelters, moving into one often means not only leaving
home, but leaving–and losing–one’s community. This invariably has a negative
impact on an individual’s social capital, in that the natural resources and supports
(family, friends, teachers and other adults) that might help someone move
forward and avoid longer term homelessness become strained and weakened.
A second thing to consider is that most emergency shelters for youth bring
together a mix of young people, some who are new to the streets and some
who have been on the streets for years and who have very complex challenges
relating to mental health, addictions, criminal involvement etc. that are not
being adequately dealt with. The challenges for shelter staff are considerable and
preventing young people who are new to the streets from exposure to crime,
sexual exploitation, violence and addictions can be a difficult challenge. There
is every reason to want to help young people avoid becoming mired in street
youth culture. Since many young people who use shelters are fleeing difficult,
conflictual and potentially traumatic situations, life in an emergency shelter may
be experienced by some as ‘freedom’ and a relief. Without adequate support to
address the underlying issues that created the crisis, or to help move forward
into housing with appropriate supports, it is all too easy for young people to
become stuck in the street youth life, surrounded by other youth who may help
them meet daily needs (food, companionship, survival skills), but who have weak
capacity to really help them move forward with their lives. While for many young
people who become homeless, the relationships they establish on the streets are
important in reminding them that they can be liked, they can trust people and
they aren’t alone, in many cases these relationships can involve exploitation and
be quite limiting if they undermine people’s confidence to leave the streets.
The underlying goal of shelter diversion, then, is to help young people transition
to stability and prevent homelessness. This is best done by providing young
people with locally-based supports, drawing on the resources that exist in the
community and by giving young people temporary housing options (with extended
family, friends, religious institutions etc.).This allows time to work through the
problems that led to homelessness, ideally with case management support.
A program model for shelter diversion should integrate other elements
of early intervention, including common assessment, case management
and family reconnection. Again, as part of a ‘system of care’, there should
be an effort to develop the program drawing on mainstream supports
in the education and health care systems. We need to do what we can
to keep young people in their communities and close to home (if it is
safe to do so) where they can draw on their natural supports.
56
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Youth Reconnect
RAFT: Niagara Resource Service for Youth
Youth Reconnect is an early intervention shelter diversion
program developed in Southern Ontario’s Niagara Region.
This region includes rural areas, many small towns and a
mid-sized city, St. Catharines. The outcome of a collaborative
pilot project involving youth homeless service providers,
the goal of this community-based prevention program is
to help homeless and at-risk youth, from both urban and
rural areas, stay in their communities and obtain needed
supports. “The initiative helps clients access resources and
increases their self-sufficiency, by assisting adolescents to
maintain school attendance, secure housing and develop
a social safety net in their home community” (RAFT,
2012:1). The desire is to prevent them from frequenting
youth shelters in St. Catherines or Toronto, by which time
their exposure to a range of risks, including addictions,
crime and sexual exploitation, may make helping them
move on with their lives that much more difficult.
Program Design. The program developed as a partnership
between a broad range of service providers. The program
targets young people between the ages of 16 and 19, who
are referred by high schools, community partners, social
service agencies and police. The young person is then met
by a Reconnect worker to assess their needs and develop
a community-based plan of action designed to help them
draw on local supports, enhance protective factors, reduce
risk and stay in school. If they need crisis housing, they are
transported to one of the local hostels on a temporary basis
until arrangements are made for them to move back into
their community.
57
Typical program interventions include:
- Helping youth remain in schools whenever possible by
securing living arrangements.
- Working directly with individual schools and school
boards to develop plans for youth returning to school after
dropping out or creating education plans to help at-risk
youth remain in school.
- Connecting youth with financial support programs and
stable housing to ensure youth are able to continue with
their education.
- Securing affordable housing and a stabilized income by
reducing access barriers and providing advocacy when
needed.
- Linking youth to specialized services (i.e. mental health,
addictions, family counselling) as required.
- Directly assisting youth to develop a social safety
net to support them in the future and to help them
as they move forward from the program.
“By creating a localized support network and keeping
youth within their home communities, the youth reconnect
initiative is able to help youth remain connected to their
communities, with the support they need, instead of
forcing youth to relocate to a larger urban area, where they
are more susceptible to engaging in high risk behaviours”
(RAFT, 2012: 2).
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
→ Shelter Diversion
An interesting model of shelter diversion for youth is
respite accommodation. The goal of respite housing, which
has been experimented with and implemented in several
communities in the UK (sometimes referred to as ‘Time Out’
housing) and is becoming more popular in the United States
through Host Home programs, is to provide young people
with temporary, short-term accommodation with lots of
supports. It is considered particularly appropriate for young
people under the age of 18, is intended as an alternative to
the youth shelter system, gives young people a break from
their family, or temporary shelter while looking for a place
to stay and also helps young people avoid getting caught
up in street youth culture. The actual service delivery model
and approach to accommodation can take different forms–it
can involve small, purpose-built facilities (similar in some
ways to shelters), but more often, young people will be
placed in households that have a spare room. In some cases,
the hosts are volunteers, in other cases, they are paid.
The development of respite housing stems from the
knowledge that young people sometimes become homeless
because an unresolved family conflict can erupt into a
crisis. Temperatures rise, angry words are said and parents
ask the young person to leave, or conversely, the youth
makes the decision to leave home. In such cases (and in
particular where there may be family conflict, but no history
of physical, sexual or emotional abuse) a ‘time out’ space
is needed, where young people and their families can
work on repairing relations so that the youth can return
home, or conversely, provides them with accommodation
while they work out longer-term housing support.
Respite accommodation, then, is designed to provide:
“safe, high quality accommodation for a short period
of time to give them and their families a ‘breather’ and
provide a supportive environment for all parties to rebuild
their emotional resilience and renegotiate relationships”
(Quilgars et al., 2011:8).
When in respite housing, young people are typically
provided with night clothing and two meals a day. After
the first night’s stay, youth are offered case management
support by a local agency, where they work on plans that
include family reconnection (and potentially mediation),
as well as life skills. In order to ensure the safety and
effectiveness of respite programs involving stays in private
homes, there are robust recruitment and placement
procedures (Smith & Duckett, 2010:12). Host families are
trained and supported and the program operates with an
established Quality Standards Assessment in place.
58
Nightstop
Depaul UK operates 40 Nightstop services throughout
the United Kingdom, working with over 500
volunteer hosts. Young people aged 16-25 are able
to stay with an adult or family for up to 21 days.
“Nightstop provides an opportunity for a young person
who is homeless to stay with a volunteer, in their home,
whilst family reconciliation work is undertaken and/or
more settled accommodation secured. Young people
are given their own room, a toiletry pack and can have
their clothes washed if needed. They are also given an
evening meal and breakfast. They are normally asked to
vacate the host’s property during the day; at what time
is a decision for the individual hosts.” (Insley, 2011:7)
Depaul did an extensive evaluation of the Nightstop
program, which in 2010 provided 8166 bed nights for
2033 young people, most of whom were fleeing family
conflict and/or were thrown out of their homes. While
many of the young people who came in to the program
were ‘couch surfing’ directly prior, 11% were sleeping
rough (absolutely homeless). In terms of housing
outcomes after staying at Nightstop, 21% returned to
their families, 36% moved into supported housing,
14% obtained private accommodation, 11% moved
into social housing and 14% moved in with a friend.
For more information, see: Insley, E. (2011b) Staying
Safe: An Evaluation of Nightstop Services
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Early Intervention
4.4
→ Shelter Diversion
St. Basil’s “Time Out” project in Birmingham (UK) makes use of one of their
housing units to provide young people with a place to stay, usually for a
period of 2 weeks. During that time, they get 10 hours of support each week
from a staff member and engage in family mediation. An evaluation of this
program identified that 78% of young people returned home after two weeks,
reported in Quilgars et al., 2011. As one program manager explains:
“Our focus is to assist young people who present with crisis housing need as a
result of family conflict an opportunity to spend some time away from the family
home–a period of two weeks to not only learn life skills and independent living
skills but also to engage in mediation with their parents or caregiver which is
very much focused on them returning home in a planned and safe way. After the
two weeks stay with us, ultimately our goal is for them to return home, but if not
it is to ensure that they have thought through planning the process of moving
out of the family home."
(Marsha Blake, Prevention Services manager (Smith & Deutschman, 2010)).
In North America, Host Home programs have been implemented in many
jurisdictions. The State of Minnesota has developed Host Home programs in
many areas of the state and significantly, in the Twin Cities they have a program
targeting LGBTQ youth. It is a particularly effective model in rural areas,especially
those that lack emergency shelters, because it allows young people to stay in their
community (Baker Collins, 2013). In the area surrounding Brainerd, Minnesota,
for instance, Lutheran Social Services have recruited and trained many adults to
provide Host Homes. When a young person becomes homeless, they are matched
up with adults or families (who are paid a small stipend). A youth worker usually
meets with the youth and the host the first night, in order to help the young
person settle in and begin the process of determining next steps. In the context
of family conflict they negotiate a ‘cooling off’ period; although the family is
informed the next day that the young person is in a host home the whereabouts
of the home is not disclosed. The next steps can include family reconnection or
efforts to help the young person find appropriate accommodations and supports.
59
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Preventing Youth Homelessness ━ Conclusion
4.5
Conclusion
The prevention of youth homelessness should be central to any strategy to
address the problem. The framework presented here is intended to highlight
key points for intervention. The need to work with young people, their families,
schools and other community supports is necessary, in order to avoid the spiral
into longer term homelessness. While the goal of prevention is most certainly
to reduce the likelihood that young people wind up in emergency shelters, the
reality is that for some young people, this will still continue to happen. At the
same time, while efforts to help young people stay at home with their families
are important, it is also recognized that for many this is not an option, for safety
reasons or simply because there is no home to return to. As such, the models
of prevention presented here must be embedded in a broader strategy that
includes an emergency response, but also models of accommodation and support
designed to help young people make the successful transition to adulthood.
60
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services
1.3
5.0
Retooling the System
In rethinking our approach to youth
homelessness, there is a need to continue
to support a robust crisis response, because
no matter how strong our prevention
strategies, there will still be situations and
events that lead young people to be without
housing and supports. However, emergency
services cannot alone form the basis of our
response to youth homelessness.
Emergency services are a key and important feature of
the crisis response to youth homelessness. In Canada
and the United States, this crisis response typically
includes emergency shelters, day programs, outreach,
employment/education and other supports, designed to
build connections, alleviate the worst consequences of
being homeless and help young people move towards
independence. There is incredible variety and diversity in
the mandates and structures of emergency services and
supports, broadly based on funding structures, policy
61
frameworks and the philosophical orientation of the
governing organization. Age mandates vary (some serve
young people aged 16-18; others as young as 12 and up
to the age of 25), as does the targeted client group (most
are mixed gender, but some will serve males or females
exclusively), the size and capacity of different services,
the range of supports offered and the hours of operation.
Many communities do not have any youth-focused crisis
response at all, forcing young people into the adult system,
if that exists, or to leave their communities all together.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ What is a Retooled Emergency Response?
5.1
What is a Retooled Emergency Response?
So when we say we need to retool the system, this is not a criticism of the
emergency sector, per se, but rather a call to reorient the emergency response so
that its mandate is to support prevention-based models of early intervention and
strategies to help move young people into housing, with appropriate supports. In
the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia–all countries that have been
grappling with a large homelessness problem much longer than Canada–there
has been a paradigm shift in the response to homelessness that involved retooling
their emergency services. This has meant providing a new policy and funding
framework that rewards the emergency sector for providing longer-term solutions
for people who experience homelessness, rather than for outputs such as how
many beds are filled, or how many people use a day program, for example.
A retooled and repurposed emergency sector goes hand in hand with a
commitment to end homelessness and will:
- Ensure that all people who come into contact with the homelessness sector
are assessed and provided with supports to either return home or move into
housing as quickly as possible.
- Adopt a client-centred case management approach for individuals and families
that enter the system and ensure they are tracked as they navigate their way out
of the system.
- Fund and reward service providers for focusing on prevention and rapid
rehousing as a service priority and make the goal of emergency services a
shorter experience of homelessness.
- Integrate ‘Housing First’ and/or transitional housing supports when working
with chronic and long-term homeless clients.
- Develop a strong outreach focus to bring in young people who are not
connected to services and make rapid rehousing a priority for them.
- Invest in smaller and dispersed shelter environments that provide individual
rooms with locked doors.
In retooling the crisis response in both the UK and Australia, emergency shelters
are not seen as distinct from either preventive approaches or strategies that help
people move into stable housing, but rather, they are geared to facilitate these
outcomes. In other words, while in Canada we often see the homelessness sector
as somewhat discrete from both the places people come from and where they
are going, emergency services elsewhere are framed explicitly as tools to support
prevention and rapid rehousing and to help people move into independent living–
and stay there. Emergency shelters must be considered as part of a continuum of
care, with crisis services engaged in and supporting aspects of, prevention and
early intervention described in the previous section, but also becoming a pathway
to a supported accommodation model, so to speak. The crisis response, then, is not
distinct from prevention approaches and accommodation, but works to support
them. Below are some key elements of an effective emergency response.
62
Retooling the system
means reorienting the
emergency response
so that its mandate is
to support preventionbased models of early
intervention and strategies
to help move young
people into housing, with
appropriate supports.
Key Elements
A Shorter Stays in Emergency
Shelters
B Integration into a 'System of
Care'
C Go Smaller
D Zero Discharge into
Homelessness
E Day Programs and Case
Management
F Outreach
G Mental Health Supports
H Harm Reduction
I
An Anti-Discrimination
Framework & Practice
J Advertising Legal & Justice
Issues
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
Key Elements
A
Shorter Stays in Emergency Shelters
The research on homeless shelters for adults, families and youth identifies a great
deal of variation in terms of the built environment and elements of design, the
relationship of the shelter to the community and surrounding environment and
aspects of service (Hurtubise et al., 2009; Sandalak et al., 2008; Karabanow, 2004).
Shelters can and do play a role in the response to youth homelessness:
“In addition to providing services to meet basic needs, such as meals and a
place to stay, shelters can offer youth opportunities for supportive relationships,
engagement and empowerment that support healthy developmental processes
impeded within their other life contexts.”
(Heinz, 2013:279)
We do know a lot about shelters, but within a reimagined response to youth
homelessness, what should the role of the emergency shelter be and how is it
situated within a system of care?
Ideally, the focus should continue to be providing crisis support, however a stay
in an emergency shelter should be temporary and short-term. The notion of
‘emergency’ shelter or refuge means that people receive safe accommodation
during a crisis and then move on. A reasonable goal for shelter providers is a
stay of less than a month and this target is often a feature of Ten Year Plans to end
homelessness. The Calgary Ten Year Plan, for instance, sets the ambitious target for
a maximum average stay in emergency shelters to be less than seven days by 2018
(Calgary Committee to End Homelessness, 2008:12).
Research from the United States shows that the majority of young people who
utilize shelters are in fact there for a short time (temporarily disconnected), but
there are also young people who get trapped in the system and stay for much
longer (“unstably connected” and “chronically disconnected”). These youth, though
smaller in number, utilize more resources and beds.
There is plenty of research (including research from Canada) that attests to the
negative impact of long-term youth homelessness (Public interest, 2009; Gaetz
et al., 2010), including declining health, exposure to violence and exploitation,
depression and becoming mired in ‘street life.’
63
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
→ (A) Shorter Stays in Emergency Shelters
The ‘move on’ principle should be enforced, so what gets in the way of change?
- Lack of an integrated systems response. The flow into shelters is not reduced
by effective prevention and the flow out is hampered by a lack of affordable and
appropriate housing options.
- Limitations to the service delivery model of many youth shelters. Getting young
people to move forward and get out of the sector is an ongoing challenge when
emergency services focus for the most part on “three hots and a cot” (i.e. three
meals a day and a place to sleep).
- Beliefs about the intractability of homelessness. In some shelter contexts, staff
may hold the belief that the problems facing some individuals (the chronically
homeless in particular) are so significant that getting them into stable housing is
not a ‘realistic’ goal.
- Misguided funding and policy frameworks. In many jurisdictions in Canada,
shelter operators are rewarded for how many people they house (as they are paid
on a per diem basis), rather than on their prevention strategies, or how many
individuals they help move out of homelessness.
There are lessons we can learn from other countries that have begun the process of
retooling their emergency shelters. In both Australia and the United Kingdom, there
has been an evolution in how they think about youth homeless shelters. In Australia,
there was a movement to reform the shelter system for homeless youth in the 1980s,
as part of the creation and implementation of the Supported Accommodation
Assistance Program (SAAP). Central to this shift was a move from emergency
shelters conceived of as ‘refuges’, to the development of ‘crisis accommodation
services’. This reworking of the shelter system allowed for flexibility in service
delivery models in order to respond more effectively to the diverse range of client
needs and situations. The crisis accommodation services were incorporated into a
broader continuum of care framework that drew more explicitly on an understanding
of young people’s needs rather than simply the provision of emergency shelter. While
young people can stay as long as they need to, staff focus on keeping the stays as
short as possible while working to help young people find suitable accommodation.
Key to this approach is a service delivery model that focuses on:
- Incorporating the social and recreational needs of young people.
- Working to connect young people to family and/or to develop positive
relationships.
- Assisting and educating young people to develop the necessary social and
living skills.
- Connecting 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.
64
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
B
Integration into a ‘System of Care’
Emergency services, where they exist, should be properly integrated within
a ‘system of care’. This means that in communities that have multiple service
providers, agencies must work collaboratively and in an integrated way. It means
that steps must be taken to ensure that emergency services are able to draw on
the support of mainstream services (health care, mental health, addictions), which
is sometimes a major challenge. Finally, it means that emergency services should
not be considered separate or distinct from, but rather, properly embedded within
an integrated systems approach that highlights prevention and accommodation
with supports. In fact, key elements of early intervention practices described
in the previous section (common assessment, case management and family
reunification) should also be central to an emergency response, with the goal
of helping young people avoid longer term involvement with more traditional
emergency services.
However–and this cannot
be stressed enough–you
cannot dramatically alter the
emergency response unless
you also put in place strong
prevention programs and
ensure that there are options
for accommodation available
to young people.
However–and this cannot be stressed enough–you cannot dramatically alter the
emergency response unless you also put in place strong prevention programs
and ensure that there are options for accommodation available to young people.
If there is not available and appropriate affordable housing for young people (with
supports if necessary), you cannot task the emergency sector with making stays in
shelters shorter.
In the end, integrating young people into a system of care also demands some
form of coordinated assessment to determine the needs of young people and a
case management approach that helps them navigate systems.
65
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
C
Go Smaller
Smaller shelters, though potentially having higher operating costs because of
staff/client ratios, offer a number of advantages. First, there is greater flexibility
in allowing for tailored service models that can potentially target youth subpopulations. Second, the scale means that a different kind of work can be
accomplished with young people and shelters can more effectively target subpopulations, be they females, LGBTQ youth, or Aboriginal youth, for instance. Third
and perhaps most importantly, it means that shelters can be dispersed and located in
different communities. Large youth shelters often meet local resistance (NIMBYism).
As a result, most are located in downtown areas of larger cities, meaning that to
access them, youth have to leave their home communities.
In Australia today, emergency youth shelters are typically much smaller than in
Canada, with six to eight persons per shelter. In many shelters, capital investments
have been made to redevelop facilities so that youth are provided with more
independence and safety within the building including private bathroom and bedrooms
(Leebeek et al., 2005). Ideally, each young person has their own room with a door they
can lock (Walsh et al., 2009). These smaller shelters tend to be well furnished and in
some cases, young people are able to take their furnishings with them when they
move out. It should be pointed out that there is recognition that such a reform of the
emergency ‘refuge’ model could not take place without a concurrent commitment to
mid-term and long-term accommodation solutions for youth.
“Go smaller, fight for the
money, make them nice
places to be. Don’t make
them austere. Don’t have a
bare mattress. Make it look
nice. Invest in living space,
good quality furniture,
nice flooring, everything
that makes it nice. These
poor kids are coming from
horrible places often, so
make it nice for them.”
(Narelle Clay, Chairperson,
Homelessness Australia).
In the United Kingdom, there has been a similar focus on reforming emergency
shelters. There are two key and interrelated differences that distinguish their
approach to emergency shelter from that of Canada. The first is that there is a more
general acceptance of case management and supports as a central feature of life
in shelters, with attention paid to life skills training. This kind of approach is most
effective, however, when there is recognition of the importance of relationship
building between staff and clients (Jones et al., 2001; Pleace et al., 2008; Quilgars,
2000; Social Inclusion Unit, 2005). The second difference, which is related to the first,
is that emergency services are more directly oriented to helping young people move
on as quickly as possible. Key lessons learned from these examples include:
- Recognition that size matters: While ‘generic hostel provision’ (non-specialized)
may work for some young people, it is argued that more specialized services,
with a smaller number of beds and a higher staff ratio, are seen to be more
appropriate for young people with high needs (mental health or addictions issues,
for instance).
- Case management support.
- Differentiated shelter options–for instance, accommodation for young women
separate from young men.
- Shelter programming focused on positive youth development.
- Integration of shelters into a ‘system’ or ‘continuum’ of care.
66
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
D
Zero Discharge into Homelessness
All institutions have rules and regulations outlining acceptable and unacceptable
behaviour and emergency shelters are no different (Hurtubise et al., 2009; Neale
et al., 1997; Roy et al., 2000). There should always be an expectation of compliance
with rules. However, rule breaking should never become a reason to discharge
someone into homelessness. Possible reasons for discharge are many and varied
and are based on the rules and culture of the institution. This can include breaking
curfew, being intoxicated, acts of violence and aggression, talking back to staff
and in the case of some faith-based shelters, moral transgressions such as getting
an abortion. In other cases, young people are discharged because the shelter in
question has a limit on how long someone can stay.
There are compelling reasons to find alternatives. Young people who are homeless
are already at-risk. Discharging them into homelessness can increase risk and
makes the sector part of the problem, rather than the solution. Many young people
who become homeless have a history of institutional care, in which rule-bound
environments with trip-wires can increase conflict and alienation and undermine
self-esteem and produce feelings of failure. Additionally, discharging is often an
institutional response to managing people in a chaotic environment, rather than
being a well thought out principle of practice.
It does not have to be this way. Many organizations have recognized the need to
work differently. For instance, the Boys and Girls Club of Calgary (BGCC),
following one of the core principles of the Calgary Homeless Foundation, have
adopted a “zero discharge into homelessness” policy for all of their eight programs
serving homeless youth. These programs range from an emergency shelter, to
prevention programs, to transitional housing and Housing First. Katie Davies,
BGCC manager says “We operate on the principle that housing and shelter is
a human right. Youth do not earn home or shelter through good behaviour”
(personal communication, 2013). Shifting to this approach can be a challenging
change management exercise, but it can be done and would become part of a more
respectful–and less punitive–approach to working with young people in crisis.
67
Young people who are
homeless are already atrisk. Discharging them into
homelessness can increase
risk and makes the sector
part of the problem, rather
than the solution.
"We operate on the
principle that housing
and shelter is a human
right. Youth do not earn
home or shelter through
good behaviour”
(Katie Davis, Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary., 2013)
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
E
Day Programs and Case Management
"Many young people who use day services may do so to
meet needs that have nothing to do with the agenda of the
agency or service provider (for instance, meeting friends). At
the same time they may–for very good reasons–be alienated
from and distrustful of adults, including those who work
in day programs, however well-meaning. This may mean
that organizations and staff have to be flexible, offer young
people different ways to engage and be patient in building
relationships."
Day programming is an important part of the emergency response to homeless
youth. It is often where young people make first contact with the sector. It can be a
place where young people meet others, obtain food and other material resources,
rest and escape bad weather. It is a place where young people can engage adults
and get help and support. These are all important resources for young people,
especially those who are absolutely homeless.
However, day programs can be much more and can serve several important
functions in supporting young people. First, they should support–and ideally be
incorporated within–other services for homeless youth. They should be part of an
integrated system, rather than a stand-alone service. In this sense, they can operate
as a hub and referral service, helping young people link to the supports they need,
either by bringing those services to the young people, or by helping them access
external services and supports. Second, the focus of engagement with young
people should be purposeful. The day program should be more than simply a place
to ‘hang out’; it should engage youth through activities and practices that help
them move forward with their goals. A client-centred case management approach
is recommended, so that the work is supported, and driven, by what the young
person determines to be significant.
Many young people who use day services may do so to meet needs that have
nothing to do with the agenda of the agency or service provider (for instance,
meeting friends). At the same time they may–for very good reasons–be alienated
from and distrustful of adults, including those who work in day programs, however
well-meaning. This may mean that organizations and staff have to be flexible, offer
young people different ways to engage and be patient in building relationships. This
does not mean that day programs should lose sight of the overall goal, which is to
help young people move off the streets.
68
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
F
Outreach
Street outreach involves moving outside the walls of the
agency to engage young people who may be disconnected
and alienated not only from mainstream services and
supports, but from the services targeting homeless youth,
as well. This is incredibly important work designed to help
establish supportive relationships, give young people advice
and support and hopefully enhance the possibility that they
will access necessary services and supports that will help
them move off the streets.
Building strong relationships is essential, because there
may be legitimate barriers that prevent young people
from accessing services, including unsatisfying or even
problematic experiences of child protection services,
homeless shelters or mental health facilities. This work can
take time. For many young people with addictions issues,
with pets, with partners they refuse to part with, or who are
underage and fearful of being turned over to child protection
authorities, there may be real or perceived barriers to
accessing existing services. It may also be the case that the
young person has simply ‘slipped through the cracks’ and is
unaware of the range of services and supports that are out there.
Outreach strategies require the development of an
understanding of the individual circumstances and needs
of each youth, as well as cultural barriers that may prevent
young people from accessing mainstream services for
homeless youth (Aboriginal youth, for instance). This
means a personalized assessment of risk behaviours
and circumstances. Through the development of positive
relationships, the attainment of the larger goal of helping
young people access the services and supports they need
in order to help them move forward with their lives can be
achieved. Outreach that merely helps support young people
who are living independently but without any shelter may be
a necessary and important first step in relationship building,
but the overall goal of street outreach should be tied to the
larger goal of helping young people move off the streets as
quickly as possible. In order to achieve this goal, outreach
workers need to be familiar with and have access to, a range
of mainstream and community services. Outreach services
that are run by an agency whose goal is simply to link the
person to that agency, are not seen as effective. Workers need
to be seen as doing the work of the sector and not simply of
the agency they work for. This requires a higher degree of
interagency collaboration.
69
There are several key challenges to successful outreach. First,
street outreach involves working with visibly homeless youth
living on the streets–there needs to be outreach strategies for
the invisible homeless, that is, young people who are couch
surfing or living without shelter in hard to reach and remote
places, etc. Second, outreach can be challenging because
young people are not obliged to talk with or otherwise
engage workers, in the way they might have to within the
walls of an agency. This means outreach can be slow and
the results can sometimes feel ambiguous. There is some
evidence that a ‘stages of change’ approach to conducting
outreach is more effective, since the intervention can be tied
to a young person’s accepted willingness to move forward
with their lives. Finally, many young people will avoid going
to mainstream shelters and day programs for good reasons–
they are afraid, they have pets (for company and safety) and
staying in shelters may mean disrupting important and close
relationships they see as vital to surviving on the streets.
These conditions in fact suggest that when possible, the
emergency shelter system must demonstrate flexibility when
it comes to maintaining important relationships, networks of
support and even pets.
In many places in Canada, there is an understanding that
outreach is important in order to access hard-to-reach young
people, though it is not always connected to an overt and
concerted effort to end homelessness. Key features of youth
outreach in the UK and Australia are useful in conceptualizing
how to make this link:
- Outreach is not limited to the visibly homeless. An effort
should be made to connect with ‘couch surfers’ and to
get into institutional settings where young people may be
housed, but are still ‘at risk’ (see educational programs
sited above).
- Outreach is often tied to more aggressive efforts to reduce
‘rough sleeping’, as they call it in the UK.
- Rather than a more passive form of engagement, outreach
tends to involve ‘intake’ and case management support.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
G
Mental Health Supports
Addressing the mental health needs of young people continues to be a major
challenge for those working in the homelessness sector. As discussed above, the
percentage of young people who experience serious mental health issues is 10-20%
and the situation for homeless youth is even worse (Public Health Agency of Canada,
2012). In one study, approximately 40% of homeless youth identified themselves
as having mental health issues, with that number increasing with length of time on
the streets (70% amongst those homeless more than four years). This includes not
only serious mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder,
but the rigours of life on the streets mean that street youth are more likely to exhibit
very high levels of depression, anxiety (obsessive/compulsive and phobic), hostility,
paranoia and psychoticism, for instance. The elevated rates of depression, suicidal
ideation and other psychiatric disorders in homeless youth has been demonstrated
by others (McCay, 2009; McCay & Aiello, 2013; Kidd, 2004; 2013; Boivan, 2005; Kidd
& Kral, 2002; Leslie et al., 2002) and this risk is particularly pronounced among gay,
bisexual and transgendered youth (Gattis, 2009; Cochran et al., 2002).
There is a common perception within the youth homelessness sector that mental
health problems are becoming more prevalent amongst the street youth population.
While there is no evidence of this15, it is worth noting that accessing appropriate care
and support for their clients from mainstream services continues to be a challenge
for those working with street youth in many communities. Research in Toronto
showed that amongst youth who self-identified as having mental health problems,
over half reported they cannot access the mental health services they need (Yonge
Street Mission, 2009). The literature also indicates that young people who have had
significant ‘system involvement’ experience fragmentation and discontinuation, of
mental health care as they transition between systems (Munson et al., 2011).
The inadequacy of mental health supports absolutely demonstrates the need for an
integrated ‘system of care’ approach. Rather than recreate mental health systems
within the sector, there is a need for more effective, seamless (and respectful)
collaboration and involvement by mainstream service providers. Unfortunately,
the homelessness sector typically lacks the power and influence to shape how
the health care system operates. This is where regional health authorities and
provincial governments must mandate an effective mental health response to youth
homelessness.
40 - 70%
40 - 70%
of homeless youth have
mental health issues
compared to
10 - 20% of housed youth
15
This may simply be a reflection of
growing awareness amongst staff (and
Canadians in general) about mental health
problems and staff now ‘recognize’ what
were formerly interpreted as behavioural
challenges, as mental disorders.
In one study, approximately 40% of homeless youth identified
themselves as having mental health issues, with that number
increasing with length of time on the streets (70% amongst
those homeless more than four years).
70
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
H
Harm Reduction
For many, but not all, young people who become homeless, the
use of different substances, both legal (alcohol and cigarettes)
and illegal, is common. In some cases, substance use can
be highly problematic and addictions can ensue. It is worth
pointing out that while addictions can sometimes be a cause of
youth homelessness, for many youth the use of substances is a
response to the stresses and trauma of homelessness and street
life.
There is a vast body of literature that addresses the addictions
issues of young people who become homeless (Adlaf et al.,
1999; Roy et al., 2009). While many services for homeless youth
adopt an ‘abstinence only’ model, it is argued here that harm
reduction models should be incorporated into our response to
youth homelessness.
Harm reduction is still controversial in many communities, in
part because it is not well understood. Harm reduction is defined
as an approach aimed at “reducing the risks and harmful effects
associated with substance use and addictive behaviours for the
individual, the community and society as a whole. It is deemed
a realistic, pragmatic, humane and successful approach to
addressing issues of substance use. Recognizing that abstinence
may be neither a realistic or a desirable goal.” (Homeless Hub,
Harm Reduction, 2014). It is considered to be a realistic and
pragmatic approach to addressing the negative consequences
of substance use and is based on recognition that abstinence
may be neither a realistic or desired goal for some users. From
a harm reduction perspective, substance use is understood in
terms of its impact on health and well-being, rather than simply
a moral or criminal issue. People can, do and will continue to use
substances and so the focus is to ensure that it does not create
harm for the individual or those around them.
Harm Reduction is a realistic and pragmatic
approach to addressing the negative
consequences of substance use and is based
on recognition that abstinence may be
neither a realistic or desired goal for some
users. From a harm reduction perspective,
substance use is understood in terms of its
impact on health and well-being, rather than
simply a moral or criminal issue.
71
Many people incorrectly interpret a harm reduction
approach as promoting, supporting or –minimally–being
indifferent to substance use and ignoring those who want to
quit. This is clearly a misunderstanding of the concept and it
is worth pointing out that harm reduction does not exist in
opposition to abstinence. That is, because harm reduction is
invariably a client-centered approach that respects choice, it
in fact incorporates abstinence as an option for some young
people, either in the present or in the future. Choice is really
key here: some young people will desire a harm reduction
environment, while others will absolutely want abstinencebased services. Providing young people with a range of
options is the true approach to harm reduction.
There is considerable evidence of the effectiveness of harm
reduction (Rhodes & Hedrich, 2010; Marlatt & Witkiewitz, 2010;
Buccieri, 2013a; Kirst & Erikson, 2013). There is also growing
acceptance of harm reduction as an important tool and
strategy for working with homeless youth (or youth at risk)
who are struggling with addictions. Moreover, many Canadian
communities such as Toronto and Vancouver have emerged as
leaders in terms of the practice of Harm Reduction.
Eva’s Satellite is a low-barrier youth shelter in Toronto that
targets young people with addictions issues. Through the
implementation of a comprehensive harm reduction strategy,
the Satellite aims to support youth in taking: “crucial steps
toward rebuilding their lives by receiving counselling, life skills
training and participating in healthy recreation programs”
(Eva’s website). The Satellite partners with other agencies
(including Inner City Health Associates and Central Toronto
Youth Services) to provide innovative programming and
services designed to respond to the needs of youth who
actively use drugs and alcohol. Some services include: health
care, a clinical program, detox, peer and recreation programs
and community outreach.
For more information, go to the Eva’s Satellite website, or
contact Evas at: info@evas.ca
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Harm Reduction at Shout Clinic
Toronto, ON
Shout Clinic, a community health centre in Toronto, has had a long history of
providing comprehensive services and supports to young people who are homeless
and who are not well served by the rest of the service system. The clinic operates
with a harm reduction philosophy and working with other community-based
agencies has supported the implementation of innovative approaches. In 2010,
Shout Clinic conducted a comprehensive study of young people who are homeless
and their use of drugs (Barnaby et al., 2010). They found that while young people
who come to the clinic are more likely to use illicit substances, they also were
committed to improving their own health and well-being. Their research with young
people reinforced the critical role of harm reduction and other health and social
services in supporting youth who are homeless.
Several key components of harm reduction programming have been identified by
Shout Clinic in Toronto and include:
- On-site and mobile harm reduction distribution programs
(e.g. needle exchanges).
- Access to safer drug use equipment (e.g. injection equipment), safer sex
supplies, body art supplies (e.g. safer body piercing kits) and biohazard
containers for safe disposal of used equipment.
- Safe injection and consumption sites.
- Overdose prevention and treatment (e.g. Naloxone treatment).
- Methadone maintenance and drug substitution and other models of
treatment programs.
- Outreach, education, counselling and health promotion aimed at maintaining
and enhancing health and well-being; and the prevention of substance use
related harms.
- Peer programming, support groups and user unions for people who
use substances.
- The provision of medical and mental health services.
- Access to basic needs such as food, clothing, drinking water and shelter/housing.
- Referrals to shelters, housing, health care, counselling, detoxification,
drug treatment, vocational and other services and programs.
- The inclusion of people who use substances in the design and planning of harmreduction programs, strategies and policies and drug law reforms.
- Advocacy, policy development and law reform.
(Barnaby, Penn & Erickson, 2010)
72
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
I
An Anti-Discrimination Framework and Practice
There is great diversity within the homeless youth population. As discussed above, some
sub-populations are over-represented, including males, Aboriginal youth and LGBTQ
youth. Why does this matter? Although homelessness is stigmatizing for all young people
who experience it, many are doubly and triply marginalized due to racism, sexism and
homophobia. In fact, discrimination is an identifiable cause of homelessness. Many
young people continue to experience its negative impact once on the streets, from other
young people, adults and unfortunately, from many service providers.
If emergency services are the last refuge for such youth–they have no where else
to go–then it is incumbent upon the sector to ensure that service providers to not
further contribute to this marginalization. No organization should accept policies or
practices that are homophobic or racist, for instance. As an example, transgendered
youth should be able to expect the full rights, respect and the protection that they
are most certainly entitled to. Young women–many of whom have experienced
sexual exploitation and assault–should not be forced into services that include mixed
gender clientele, as this may impact on their safety and well-being. Emergency
services, then, should not only institute anti-discrimination policies, but should
ensure that they are practiced, which means training and support for staff. The first
rule of emergency supports should be to "do no harm." Youth homelessness is in
many ways about marginalization; the crisis response should not further entrench
this.
73
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Key Elements
5.2
J
Addressing Legal and Justice Issues
One of the major challenges of working with homeless youth is addressing their
legal and justice issues, the range of which are varied and complex. This means not
only dealing with their encounters with police, the courts and corrections as a result
of their illegal activities, but also their experiences as victims of crime (Gaetz, 2004;
Gaetz et al., 2010). It also means addressing difficulties they experience in dealing
with unscrupulous employers and landlords, as well as helping them address issues
relating to family law and immigration. Solid legal support is often difficult to come
by and there are usually profound limitations to the kinds of support that legal
aid clinics can provide. An interesting model of support is provided by Justice for
Children and Youth in Toronto (see next page).
Providing support for homeless youth means more than individual intervention and
advocacy; it must also redefine the role and use of law enforcement with regards
to youth homelessness. This is said with full acknowledgement of the defined role
that police services, courts and corrections have in our society. Unfortunately,
one of the consequences of the rise of homelessness as a visible ‘problem’ is that
in many communities, law enforcement becomes a strategy to address what is
essentially a social and economic issue. Calls for police to issue tickets or ‘move
people along’ often go hand in hand with legislation that redefines common
activities that homeless people engage in–like sleeping in parks, or panhandling, for
instance–as illegal. Such policies and practices, meant to render homelessness less
‘visible’ or annoying to the public, local businesses and politicians, is considered
the ‘criminalization of homelessness’ (O’Grady et al., 2011; 2013; Sylvestre, 2010a, b,
2011; Douglas, 2011).
Retooling the emergency response does not simply mean doing new things,
it means stopping things that do not work and are clearly counter-productive.
There is considerable evidence that the criminalization of homelessness has many
negative consequences for the individuals involved–including burdensome fines
that do not go away, traumatic encounters that undermine relations with police and
potentially time in jail (O’Grady et al., 2011; 2013; Amster, 2004; National Law Center
on Homelessness & Poverty, 2006, 2009). All of this can actually get in the way of
helping people move forward with their lives. It is also worth pointing out that the
criminalization of homelessness is a very expensive way to address the problem, in
terms of the cost of policing, court time and the warehousing of homeless people in
prison. It is simply bad policy and bad practice.
74
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Street Youth Legal Services
A program of Justice for Children and Youth
Toronto, Canada
Justice for Children and Youth (JFCY) is a Legal Aid Ontario clinic
that provides legal representation to Ontario youth aged 17 and
under in the areas of child welfare, income maintenance, criminal,
family, constitutional, human rights, education and health law.
For the past 15 years, JFCY has supported Street Youth Legal
Services (SYLS), an innovative program that provides legal
advice, representation, referrals and education to street-involved
youth, aged 16 to 24, via workshops and individual consultations.
Mission and Goals
- To provide street-involved youth and staff at
agencies that serve them with information and
knowledge in a way that overcomes legal barriers.
- To educate young people about the value of law
and to empower them to assert their legal rights.
- To work with youth and youth-serving agencies to
initiate community development activities linked to
addressing systemic change.
- To engage in advocacy and research
activities to address systemic change.
Program Model
SYLS is a four-part program that incorporates individual
advice and representation, education, community
development and addresses systemic change. Using an
outreach model, the project delivers legal information and
services directly to young street-involved people in drop-in
centres and shelters–the places where they congregate to
access other services, such as health care, food, employment
assistance and counselling. They also help connect young
people with ongoing legal representation if they need it.
Using a partnership model, SYLS provides training and
free consultation to the many agencies it works with.
SYLS additionally provides advocacy on behalf of the
street-involved youth population, engaging in community
development and law reform activities. They conduct
extensive workshops on a range of topics, including, but
not limited to: dealing with police, addressing criminal
charges, youth records; victim compensation and public
complaints, tenant rights and dealing with landlords,
employment assistance, family and immigration issues.
Evaluation of the SYLS program attests to its effectiveness
and also to the need for this kind of service and supports.
75
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Conclusion
5.3
Conclusion
There will always be a need for some form of emergency response, regardless
of the effectiveness of prevention programs. However, such emergency services
should never be the core of the response. The risk to young people of languishing
in homelessness is quite significant, in terms of worsening mental and physical
health, risk of criminal victimization, sexual exploitation and addictions. Moreover,
there is the loss of opportunity–to go to school, to gain skills or to develop positive
adult relationships–that gets undermined by lengthy stays in shelters. So while we
need emergency services, they should be structured and supported to do what they
do best–provide short-term and effective support, as a bridge to more sustainable
longer term solutions. As has been argued throughout this report, this can only be
achieved through the integration of emergency services within a broader strategy to
end youth homelessness.
76
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports
1.3
6.0
One thing that unites all young people who experience
homelessness is that they are attempting to obtain housing
and live independently at a very young age with very little
experience, minimal or no family support and limited resources.
When young people leave the home of their parents or
guardian and moving back is not an option, the ultimate goal
should be to support them to move into more permanent
accommodation in a safe and planned way. While the pathways
to homelessness are varied and unique, one thing that unites
all young people in this situation is that they are attempting
to obtain housing and live independently at a very young age
with very little experience, minimal or no family support and
limited resources. For younger teens, those with complex
mental health and addictions challenges, as well as young
people facing discrimination based on sexual orientation,
gender, or because of racism, this transition can become even
more complex (Buccieri, 2013b). However, this can never
be an excuse to hold young people back in anticipation of
them becoming ‘ready’ for housing and supports. The use of
emergency services should be a last—and temporary—resort.
In Canada, many communities have developed innovative
models of accommodation and supports, but these mostly
exist at the program or agency level. In the UK and Australia,
accommodation and supports for young people are
integrated into more strategic and cross-sectoral community
plans. A key direction of the United Kingdom’s National Youth
Homelessness Scheme is that local authorities (with strong
support from the national government) develop communitybased systems plans to work with individual young people
and their families not only to prevent homelessness, but to
help those who no longer wish (or are unable) to remain
at home, to move into independent accommodation in a
planned, sustainable and safe way. Their accommodation
strategy is an extension of their emergency response and
involves intake and assessment, plus a range of housing
options, including transitional and permanent housing. Key to
the approach in the UK is that while housing is necessary and
essential, young people will generally also need a range of
supports to help them maintain their housing and to transition
into adulthood.
In Australia, the response to youth homelessness is likewise
strategic and coordinated (involving different levels of
government and working across sectors) and the provision of
77
a range of options for accommodation (with supports) has been
central to their response since the Supported Accommodation
Assistance Program (SAAP) was first introduced in 1985. In
the lead up to the development of the Road Home (Australia’s
strategy to end homelessness, 2008) the National Youth
Commission Inquiry into Youth Homelessness (whose history
goes back to 1987) did an extensive review of the Australian
response to youth homelessness and issued an report that
included commentary on the role of accommodation in a
national strategy to address youth homelessness (National
Youth Commission, 2008). In their recommendations, the
commission reiterated the need to ensure a diverse range
of housing options including supported accommodation
(through SAAP) in every community. They identified the need
for appropriate supports for young people once they have
obtained housing, recognizing that even when young people
have housing, problems can occur and they may slip back into
homelessness.
Finally, the commission highlighted the importance of
developing a new national affordable housing strategy for
Australia (including new investments in social housing and tax
incentives for the private sector to build new rental housing),
with explicit attention to the needs of young people and in
particular, disadvantaged young people.
A key point here and one that needs to be heeded by
communities in Canada, is that housing interventions are not
a magic solution; they have to be embedded within a broader
strategy that takes account of the supply of affordable housing
and the availability of necessary supports. That is, you cannot
develop an effective strategy to end youth homelessness—one
that includes an emphasis on housing options—unless you
have an adequate supply of affordable housing. Research in
Australia, the UK and the US repeatedly attest to the fact that
effective strategies rely on a robust affordable housing supply.
The best laid plans–including prevention, rapid rehousing and
Housing First–cannot be fulfilled without affordable housing;
an inadequate supply will inevitably lead to a bottle neck in the
system and an expensive and ultimately damaging reliance on
emergency services for individuals and families.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Integrating Accommodation into a System of Care
6.1
Integrating Accommodation into a System of Care
There are key lessons to be learned from these international examples regarding
the development of accommodation and supports for homeless youth that can be
applied in the Canadian context. The needs of young people are diverse enough to
require a range of housing options and these needs are in part determined by age
and experience. Any effective approach to the provision of accommodation must
be situated within a solid understanding of the needs of a developing adolescent
and programs must offer more than shelter. As argued throughout this report,
the goal of addressing youth homelessness must not be focused narrowly on
achieving independence. Rather, it should be on supporting successful transitions
to adulthood. Achieving adulthood means more than simply having a roof over
one’s head. It means having the income to support oneself (and the necessary
education to sustain that) and the ability and maturity to make good decisions, to
develop and sustain positive relationships and to have a meaningful life.
ACCOMODATION
SOCIAL & HEALTH SUPPORTS
Addressing the diverse needs of young people through effective supports is
key to facilitating this transition to adulthood. Using a coordinated assessment
approach (as described in Section 4) needs are determined and the level, intensity
and duration of case management is determined. In some cases, the supports are
temporary, in other cases there will be a need for Intensive Case Management.
For those with complex and ongoing needs, Assertive Community Treatment will
be required. Because of their lack of experience in living independently, most
youth will likely need life skills training and support in dealing with landlords,
neighbours, finances, etc. In addition, many young people will have high needs
in other areas. Challenges related to health, mental health, addictions, pregnancy,
learning disabilities, anger management, etc., may require supports that are more
intensive and longer term. Those defined as ‘chronically disconnected’, for instance,
are more likely to fall into this category.
So when considering housing options for young people, one must consider the
extent and kinds of supports a young person needs in addition to providing access
to stable housing. Many of the elements of support discussed in the previous
section on Crisis Supports–including case management, addressing legal and
justice issues, a harm reduction approach, an anti-discrimination framework and
a philosophy of “zero discharge into homelessness”–must also be part of the
framework. A more comprehensive model of accommodation and supports should
be built upon the four pillars of social and health supports, income/employment,
education and youth engagement which are embedded within a broader system of
care.
INCOME & EMPLOYMENT
EDUCATION
YOUTH ENGAGEMENT
SYSTEM OF CARE
Diagram 8
Accommodation as part
of a System of Care
Any effective approach to the provision of
accommodation must be situated within a solid
understanding of the needs of a developing adolescent
and programs must offer more than shelter.
78
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Integrating Accommodation into a System of Care
6.1
Social and Health Supports
There is a spectrum of social and health needs for which young people may
require supports and depending on their age, level of development and degree
of engagement (or disengagement) from family and institutions such as school,
an effective model of accommodation must build in supports. Some young
people may need supports for a long time or forever, others will need short-term
transitional supports. In either case, what is important is that young people get
the right supports: youth-driven and flexible. For ensuring housing stability and
a transition to adulthood, the following social and health supports should be
provided:
Housing Supports
Given that many homeless youth will have little or no
experience in finding and maintaining accommodation,
housing supports are essential. This includes assistance
in obtaining accommodation, negotiating with landlords,
signing a lease and understanding tenant rights and
responsibilities. It also means helping young people learn
how to take care of and maintain housing, deal with friends
and neighbours, etc. Given their impoverished status,
many young people will require funds to cover rent, obtain
furniture and purchase supplies, etc. The goal of housing
supports should be supported by a “zero discharge into
homelessness” philosophy, so that housing stability and
crisis management become key.
Life Skills
Young people should have access to programs, mentoring
and individual support focusing on the enhancement of
self-care and life skills. This includes many of the skills
required to live independently, such as running a house,
budgeting, setting up a bank account and developing
financial literacy, etc. Health and wellness are also
important, and should focus on self-care, hygiene, nutrition
and cooking. There should also be support that enhances
relationship skills (communication and anger management,
for instance), and health and fitness. Action planning and
goal setting are also important.
Mental Health
Considerable research identifies the degree to which many
homeless youth experience mental health challenges,
the onset of which may or may not have preceded their
experience of homelessness. As part of a ‘system of
care’, young people should be supported in accessing
assessments for mental health problems or learning
disabilities, as well as in finding suitable interventions if
required. Navigating the health care system–and mental
health services in particular–can be challenging at the best
of times and is particularly difficult for young people who
experience homelessness.
79
Transitional Supports
Advocacy Many young people need support in identifying
resources and getting access to them. Navigating systems
can be challenging for anyone at the best of times, and for
young people who lack experience and may be subject to age
discrimination, this can create additional barriers. Providing
ongoing support, and in some cases accompaniment, is
important for ensuring that young people are able to work
their way through systems, and get access to services and
supports that they need and are entitled to.
Addictions
While substance use is not a problem for all or even most
homeless youth, some young people will need ongoing
support to deal with addictions, so as to not compromise
their housing and to help them become more engaged
with education, training and employment, as well as other
meaningful activities. As suggested for emergency services,
housing programs that adopt a ‘harm reduction’ philosophy
and approach are best suited to young people. Again, it
should be noted that a harm reduction approach does not
exclude the possibility of abstinence-only environments, if
that is what young people require to maintain their residency.
From a case management perspective, supports for young
people should be driven both by the nature of the young
person’s needs, but also their desires. A client-driven, flexible
and open ended model is encouraged (Rosengard et al.,
2007), where young people work with a counsellor or case
manager to develop a plan and identify their goals, as well
as the activities, resources and supports that will help them
achieve those goals. In some cases, young people will benefit
from group work and open sessions where they learn from
instructors and each other.
The actual services and supports young people need do
not necessarily have to be provided ‘in house’; in fact, one
of the key features of an effective accommodation plan for
young people is that the housing and supports provided are
embedded in a ‘system of care’ approach, where there is a
high degree of coordination between service providers and
barriers to accessing mainstream services are reduced.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Integrating Accommodation into a System of Care
6.1
Income and Employment
Inadequate income and employment are well documented
as causes of and contributing factors to, young people
cycling in and out of homelessness (Gaetz & O’Grady, 2013).
Without a regular income from steady employment and the
skills and opportunities made available by education, it can
be very difficult to afford decent, stable accommodation
and to pay for necessities such as food. In Canada, most
young people experience great challenges in earning
sufficient income to live independently, as they are often
trapped in low-wage job sectors, where full time permanent
employment is rare. When a young adult with inadequate
education is able to enter the formal labour market, it
usually means precarious employment, often on the
margins of the economy. It is for this reason that so many
young Canadians continue to live with their parents.
There is a need to enhance the employability of homeless
youth through effective job training and employment
programs. Many young people may not wish to (or may be
unable to) return to school and instead will be looking for
opportunities to increase their employability.
Traditional models of employment training that focus
narrowly on skills development and motivation will be
unlikely to adequately meet the needs of young people
who have experienced homelessness. It is also important to
consider that even when young people are employed, they
may need additional income supports.
In Canada, there are several inspiring examples of such
programs designed specifically for homeless youth,
such as the highly successful Choices for Youth in St.
John’s, Newfoundland, a ‘Green jobs’ employment and
accommodations program and Bladerunners in Vancouver,
which focuses on giving Aboriginal youth training
opportunities in construction and cultural industries. There
have also been effective strategies to engage the corporate
sector in providing employment opportunities (Noble,
2012; Noble & Oseni, 2013). These experiences suggest that
training and employment programs are most effective if:
- They are targeted to the needs and circumstances of
young people who are homeless.
- Real and marketable skills development opportunities
are available.
- Young people have housing while they are in training
and after.
- Young people have income while they are in training so
they can purchase food, required clothing, other jobrelated materials and transportation.
- Supports are provided for young people with addictions
and/or mental health challenges.
- Job coaching and mentoring is provided.
- Young people have an opportunity for educational
enhancement.
- The program is culturally sensitive.
While enhancing employability is important, it must also be recognized that many
young people will not be able to obtain jobs with a living wage, particularly if
they are young (under 18) and have dropped out of school. Thus, a key task of
responding to youth homelessness and ensuring housing stability is to ensure
that young people have an adequate income. This means designing social
assistance programs that work for youth and in some cases providing young
people with rent supplements. There should be targeted benefits/allowances
programs for young people who obtain accommodations and there are
examples of how this can work (see the section on Australia, page 53). Young
people transitioning from care should have access to financial support to enable
them to become independent. Importantly, if a goal of our response to youth
homelessness is to create a longer term impact by enabling homeless youth to
return to school and enhance their education, they will need ongoing funding and
support to make this happen. Otherwise the need for employment to meet shortterm needs will trump the longer term benefits of obtaining an education.
80
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Integrating Accommodation into a System of Care
6.1
Education
Most people in Canada recognize the importance of education for young people.
As a society we generally do what we can to ensure young people stay in
school as long as possible. Considerable evidence from Canada and elsewhere
demonstrates that early school leavers face a competitive disadvantage in the
marketplace (Sum et al., 2009; Statistics Canada, 2010; 2012b; 2012c). For instance,
during the economic downturn in 2008/2009, the unemployment rate amongst
dropouts was more than twice as high (23.2%) as it was for high school graduates
(11.9%) (Statistics Canada, 2010). People have become increasingly aware
that shifts in the economy require a more educated workforce and the rise of
‘credentialism’ (Côté & Bynner, 2008) has resulted in a steady decline in drop out
rates in Canada, reaching a low of 7.8%% in 2011-2012 (Statistics Canada, 2012b).
Those individuals with relatively low levels of education are finding the labour
market less and less accommodating and it becomes harder to stay out of poverty.
In fact, the Canadian Council on Learning reports that the lifetime costs of one
person dropping out of high school is over $300,000, which does not include other
possible social costs including policing and corrections (Hankivsky, 2008).
We know from research that amongst street youth populations, levels of
educational attainment are low, many have not completed high school and
income support is often difficult to access. In two separate studies, Gaetz and
O’Grady found the drop-out rate ranged from 57% to 65%, with an even higher
rate amongst those who engage in prostitution, squeegeeing or panhandling
(Gaetz & O’Grady, 2002; Gaetz, O’Grady, Buccieri, 2010). Though homeless youth
experience incredible barriers in obtaining education (Liljedahl et al. 2013), we do
know some of the factors that promote school engagement, including an inclusive
curriculum, anti-discriminatory practices and respectful encounters, community
engagement, positive relations with adults and appropriate supports if young
people require them.
Given the centrality of education in our understanding of what helps young
people grow into healthy independent adults, it is somewhat surprising how little
effort is given to getting homeless youth back in school. With some exceptions,
few programs for homeless youth place educational support as a central focus
of their work, in spite of what we know about the social and economic outcomes
of early school leaving. Instead, the focus of emergency services and even many
transitional housing programs is economic independence, which means finding a
job.
As part of any systems-based plan for accommodation there should be an effort
to address the educational challenges of young people (and not all homeless
youth who dropped out of school will have had negative school experiences)
and the provision of supports–including income–to enable them to enhance their
educational opportunities. This should be a central goal of agencies, even when
youth are accessing temporary emergency services. A focus on independence
through employment training–without also addressing the educational deficits
of homeless youth–may condemn these young people to a life of poverty, even if
they are able to move out of homelessness.
81
1 in 3
youth experiencing homelessness
graduate high-school
vs. 9 in 10 housed youth
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Integrating Accommodation into a System of Care
6.1
Youth Engagement
When one talks about supporting a young person’s transition to adulthood, there
is a concern not only for their achievement, but equally important, their well-being.
One of the things that supportive parents and families do is help young people
nurture positive relationships with others, connect to communities and become
involved in activities that are meaningful and fulfilling. Ideally, young people are
also supported to become involved in planning and decision-making that has an
impact not only on themselves, but also potentially on the communities they live
in. The Centres of Excellence for Children’s Well-being define youth engagement as:
“the meaningful participation and sustained involvement
of a young person in an activity, with a focus outside of
him or herself. The kind of activity in which the youth is
engaged can be almost anything─sports, the arts, music,
volunteer work, politics, social activism─and it can occur
in almost any kind of setting."
(CECW, 2002:1)
Loiselle further suggests that: “full engagement consists of a behavioural
component (e.g., spending time doing the activity), an affective component
(e.g., deriving pleasure from participating in it) and a cognitive component (e.g.,
knowledge about the activity).” (Loiselle, 2002: n.p.)
Youth engagement–supporting the development of positive relationships and
participation in meaningful activities–is a necessary factor in helping young people
move forward with their lives. Earlier in this report we spoke about the importance
of protective factors in helping young people deal with adversity. The concept of
resilience is also used, which includes enhancing protective factors by providing
environmental and relational supports. This means building on the strengths
young people possess and giving them access to a nurturing environment,
resources, relationships and activities that will help them cope with adversity,
make better decisions regarding risk and seek positive outcomes. In thinking about
accommodation and supports for homeless youth–or for those fleeing traumatic
and difficult backgrounds–this is particularly important. In other words, providing
young people with a roof over their heads, income and supports is not necessarily
enough. The outcome of efforts to house youth should not result in a young
person sitting alone in an apartment, bored, isolated and without meaningful
relationships. This is particularly important to consider because for young people
deeply involved in street life, finding accommodation can ironically mean yet more
losses, as young people leave friends behind, often by choice, (Karabanow, 2004a)
and may feel “especially isolated when living alone” (Millar, 2010:52).
When we talk about meaningful engagement, we refer to opportunities to develop
both healthy relationships and participate in activities that are fulfilling. In both
cases, there is an opportunity to nurture a sense of belonging, which is a critical
component to helping young people feel accepted, competent, valued and part of
something beyond one’s self (Schonert-Reichl, 2008a,b).
82
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Integrating Accommodation into a System of Care
6.1
→ Youth Engagement
Taking a ‘social determinants of health perspective’, youth engagement facilitates
a range of positive outcomes including skills development, improvements in
self esteem, health and stronger social relations with peers and adults. It also
contributes to improved mental health and decreases in substance use, higher
levels of school participation, lower rates of pregnancy in girls and a decrease in
criminal behaviours (Ontario Public Health Association, 2009; 2011; Ungar et al.,
2008; Oliver et al. 2006; Clea, 2002). While the benefits of involvement in sports, for
instance, are well understood, research also identifies the benefits of the arts for
engaging youth, including improvements in cognitive function (Gazzaniga, 2008;
Posner et al., 2008).
Because not all young people have the same strengths, confidence and skills
to actively engage in sports, recreation, volunteerism, community service or in
developing relationships, the provision of mentoring and support programs,
which can be developed in partnership with other mainstream providers, becomes
essential in order to nurture youth engagement. However, this does not mean that
youth engagement strategies must always be adult led. Forms of engagement
that actively involve young people in decision-making and planning are key and
are also central to developing inclusive participation in civil society (Pereira, 2007;
Delgado & Staples, 2008).
A final point: strategies of engagement are best supported by building on the
natural supports a young person possesses–peers, family members, other adults
etc. This means that unless it is unsafe to do so, young people should, where
possible, be provided with housing options in or near their communities of origin,
as this will enhance the possibilities for engagement, particularly if young people
are already in some way connected to community-based supports and services.
In summary–successful strategies to provide accommodation for young people
must be built on a solid foundation that seeks to help young people not just
transition to independence, but to adulthood. This means more than bricks and
mortar. It means access to education and employment, necessary supports
based on need and meaningful engagement with other people and with fulfilling
activities.
Successful strategies to provide accommodation for young people must be
built on a solid foundation that seeks to help young people not just transition
to independence, but to adulthood. This means more than bricks and mortar. It
means access to education and employment, necessary supports based on need
and meaningful engagement with other people and with fulfilling activities.
83
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Train for Trades
A program of Choices for Youth
St. John's, Newfoundland
Choices for Youth’s Train for Trades is an innovative program designed to create
employment opportunities within the construction industry for at-risk and
homeless youth. It is an excellent example of a housing and employment program
model that incorporates the four pillars of support. The program has demonstrated
success in improving the lives of young people who participate by enhancing their
employability through skills development and education, thus helping them obtain
and maintain housing and moving them towards adult independence and stability.
What makes the program particularly unique is the focus of the training.
Adapting the model pioneered by Warm Up Winnipeg (a training program for
Aboriginal youth and adults in Winnipeg), they shifted from training for general
construction to focusing on ‘green jobs’–retrofitting low income and social
housing for greater energy efficiency. Energy poverty–that is, the reality that
rising fuel and heating costs have a huge impact on low income individuals with
limited spending power–is a concern in virtually every community in Canada
and is often dealt with through supplements to help people pay their gas and
electric bills. Energy retrofitting is a positive approach to youth employment
training as it addresses real community needs, environmental issues and youth
homelessness all at the same time. For this reason, Train for Trades is both a
program model ripe for adaptation in virtually every community in Canada,
but also one that could potentially be scaled up significantly in larger cities.
Program Model
Employment Training
Young people are provided with a combination of instruction
by a local college (four weeks training) and then obtain real
world, jobsite work experience under the mentorship of
tradespeople.
Education
Young people in the program are also encouraged to think
about school–to complete their high school and consider
post-secondary education. According to staff, a high
percentage of participants go on to complete high school.
Housing
Young people are provided with housing while in
the program and part of their life skills support is
intended to help them learn to live independently.
Choices for Youth/Train for Trades website:
http://www.choicesforyouth.ca/programs/train-for-trades/
84
Supports
The program provides intensive case management and
supports, based on the needs of young people. They learn
life skills, are provided job coaching and supported through
the ups and downs of life at work, obtaining pay-cheques,
resolving conflict etc. They use an ‘intensive support’ model
by ensuring that young people have access to counselling
and support 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Engagement
Young people are supported in developing positive relations
with other young people and adults. In an effort to help
them learn the value of giving back to the community, they
are involved in additional projects designed to benefit the
community, such as renovating community centres etc.
Canadian Homelessness Research Network (2013) 18. Case Study:
Choices for Youth Train for Trades In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K.
Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness
in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 311-322 Toronto:
Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
Accommodation Options for Youth
When considering models of accommodation for young
people, it should be stated up front that there is no single,
ideal housing option that will meet the needs of all youth. An
effective response to youth homelessness should give young
people choices and options based on their age, experience,
level of independence and need. Novac et al. (2004a,b)
reviewed different approaches to housing for people who are
homeless and remarked on the diversity of options:
“Program models range from medical treatment to
community economic development. They tend to cluster
at the ends of a continuum from service-intensive facilities
with rigorous expectations of residents (“high-demand”
programs) to programs with flexible requirements and
optional services (“low-demand”). Transitional housing
is distinguished from supportive housing primarily in its
length of residency—supportive housing is permanent”
(Novac et al., 2004b:6)
Based on a range of factors and depending on the individual,
clearly some housing options will be more appropriate
than others. Some young people may require high levels
of support and are more suitably housed in institutional
congregate facilities, with common areas and adult
support present 24 hours a day. Youth who are chronically
disconnected, with few family supports and a history of
institutional involvement (child protection or corrections)
may have high support needs, but an institutional
congregate setting may not be ideal at all. Older youth who
are ‘temporarily disconnected,’ but who have independent
living skills and low support needs, may simply require
assistance in obtaining their own housing, with very little
additional supports. A large number of young people will fit
somewhere in between these situations.
At the other end of the spectrum and certainly the goal of all
models of accommodation and supports for young people, is
independent living, which refers to situations where young
people obtain and maintain their own or shared permanent
housing in either the social housing sector or private
market and their use of supports and services is minimal.
Many young people will need some form of enhanced
accommodation where they obtain (or are about to) their
own accommodation in a non-institutional environment, but
may require some level of ongoing support, whether it is
financial, social or health related. Some will need supports
in order to get into housing in the first place, but their needs
will lessen once they are housed and as they grow older.
Other young people may need ongoing supports.
The kinds of housing and supports that young people will
need will be determined in large part by age, but importantly,
must also take account other issues, including mental
health challenges, disengagement from family and school,
disability and addictions. Finally, models of accommodation
and support should incorporate options for different family
types. The assumption is often made that homeless youth
are unattached individuals. Many have partners and indeed,
a high percentage are young parents, though they may no
longer live with their children. The opportunity to obtain
multiple room units would facilitate family reunification,
for young people who have had to give up their children
because of their homelessness.
In the end, the determination of the best housing option for
a young person should ideally be centered on the young
person and their needs. Young people should not be forced
into a type of accommodation if they are not ready for it and
if it does not provide the kinds of supports they need.
Ideally, then, there should then be a range of housing options
for young people, extending from transitional housing to
fully independent living. For many young people transitional
housing is an important option because they may not yet
be ready to live independently. That is, they lack the skills,
confidence, maturity and experience to move immediately
into independent living. Transitional housing is typically time
limited, but is accompanied by a range of supports to help
young people get ready for independent living.
85
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
Transitional Housing for Youth
Transitional housing refers to a supportive–yet temporary–type of accommodation
that is meant to bridge the gap from homelessness to permanent housing by
offering structure, supervision, support (for addictions and mental health, for
instance), life skills and in some cases, education and training.
“Transitional housing is conceptualized as an intermediate step between emergency
crisis shelter and permanent housing. It is more long-term, service-intensive
and private than emergency shelters, yet remains time-limited to stays of three
months to three years. It is meant to provide a safe, supportive environment
where residents can overcome trauma, begin to address the issues that led to
homelessness or kept them homeless and begin to rebuild their support network.”
(Novac et al., 2004:2)
Historically, transitional housing programs were situated within dedicated, buildingspecific environments, where there was more common space and less private space
than might be the case in permanent housing environments (Sprague, 1991; Novac
et al., 2009). However, as the concept of transitional housing has evolved, new
approaches that incorporate scattered-site housing are now being adopted. In such
cases, some of the transitional ‘supports’ are considered portable.
Transitional housing, as an approach, has long been seen as part of the housing
continuum for people who are homeless and in particular for sub-populations
such as youth. However, in recent years it has become somewhat controversial,
particularly in light of the success of Housing First models, which do not require
‘readiness’ for a transition. Eberle et al., (2007) identify two key concerns:
When dealing with
homeless youth there is
still a role for transitional
housing, particularly for
those at the younger end
of the youth spectrum,
provided some key
transformations to the
model are incorporated.
Homeless youth
generally leave home
without any experience
or skills for independent
living and may need
ongoing or longer term
supports that may be
several years in duration.
1. Transitional programs reward those who do well by requiring them to move on.
2. "They can only be effective if affordable independent housing is available to
move to afterwards”.
(Eberle et al., 2007:37)
An additional concern has to do with the time-limited nature of transitional housing.
Most programs in Canada determine a maximum length of stay, which is often
quite short (usually one year, but there are some examples in Canada where
young people can stay eighteen months or more). This is antithetical to a positive
approach that supports young people transitioning to adulthood. Given the needs
of the developing adolescent and young adult, the inability of homeless youth
to earn necessary income to support themselves (especially drop-outs) and the
broader economic climate that makes it challenging for any young adult to achieve
economic independence at a young age (as discussed in Section 2), a model that
foreshortens a young person’s stay without providing necessary post-residency
supports, cannot guarantee that young people in these situations will not fall back in
to homelessness.
Nevertheless, an argument can be made that when dealing with homeless youth
there is still a role for transitional housing, particularly for those at the younger
end of the youth spectrum, provided some key transformations to the model are
incorporated. Homeless youth generally leave home without any experience or
skills for independent living and may need ongoing or longer term supports that
may be several years in duration (see the discussion of the Foyer model, below).
86
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
→ Transitional Housing for Youth
Though there have been some broader Canadian studies on the role of transitional
housing as part of a range of housing options for youth (Eberle et al. 2007; Millar,
2009; 2010), there has is surprisingly little evaluative research on the effectiveness
of transitional housing programs for youth in Canada. Exceptions are a study
of Eva’s Phoenix, a Toronto-based program that has demonstrated positive
outcomes (Zyzis et al., 2003) and Peel Youth Village (Bridgeman, 2009; Transitions
for Youth, 2007). However, there is very little published research on the long-term
effectiveness of such programs for youth in Canada, or of their success in helping
young people transition to stable housing afterward (Serge, 2002; Eberle, 2007;
Novac et al., 2009).
The situation is the same in the United States. In their policy briefing on youth
homelessness for the 2010 Opening Doors Homelessness Strategy (USICH, 2010b),
the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness lamented that while
there were an estimated 130 transitional housing programs in the US serving
4,000 young people annually, there was very little data in existence regarding
the effectiveness of these programs (USICH, 2010c). There are now a number of
research projects on transitional housing underway in the United States, however.
One model of transitional housing for youth for which there is an extensive body
of evaluative research is the Foyer model (Gaetz & Scott, 2012). There are a broad
range of examples in the United Kingdom and Australia (see box) (Quilgars et al.,
2008; Smith et al., 2006; Lovatt & Whitehead, 2006; Quilgars & Anderson, 1995;
Common Ground Community and Good Sheppard Services, 2009; DHS, 2010;
Bond, 2010; Beer et al., 2005).
The research on transitional housing models for youth–including the Foyer–has
identified some important characteristics of effective transitional housing models.
These include:
- Centering the project on the needs of adolescents and young adults.
- Young people must demonstrate a desire for change.
- Adopting a client-centered case-management approach and ensuring that
young people have access to a range of services (which can be delivered
internal or external to the organization).
- Allowing young people up to the age of 25 to stay as long as they need to.
- Young people should not be discharged into homelessness–or prematurely into
independent living–because of defined tenancy limits.
- Clear plans should be developed and implemented that support transitions to
independent living and adulthood.
- Focusing on personal development, life skills and enhancing self-esteem
through supportive client/staff relationships.
- Facilitating opportunities for youth engagement–with their community and with
recreational activities.
- Providing smaller facilities, or scattered site approaches that move away from
more ‘institutional’ settings.
- Enabling financial support where necessary, so young people do not have to
pay more than 30% of their income on rent.
- Education and training opportunities should be a central focus.
- Aftercare supports should be in place for when young people leave
transitional housing.
87
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Wesley Youth Housing Program
Hamilton, Ontario
Wesley Youth Housing Program (WYH) is a transitional housing
program located in Hamilton, Ontario. Run by Wesley Urban
Ministries, the program operates within the integrated systems
model of youth homelessness services in Hamilton and was
developed in through the Street Youth Planning Collaborative,
in partnership with CityHousing Hamilton and the City of
Hamilton. WYH provides a fully furnished multi-staged housing
program for homeless youth and those at risk of homelessness
between the ages of 16-21. Developed in 2007, the has a capacity
of nine youth in stage one and ten youth in stage two.
Intake
Two Stage Program Model
To access the program, youth are referred primarily
by professional/agency referrals; however, selfreferrals are accepted. There is an intake package that
includes a section the youth completes and another
that the referring professional completes.
The WYH Transitional Housing Program operates as a
two stage model. In Stage One young people live in a
pod environment with up to two other youth. Each youth
has their own locked bedroom, but they share common
areas including kitchen, eating area, living room and
two bathrooms. During this phase young people receive
a range of supports. They work closely with mentors
who help them set and work towards goals, including
attending school, gaining employment and addressing
issues related to health and well-being. They receive
one-on-one life skills support from a Life Coach, who
helps them learn about budgeting, grocery shopping, time
management etc. In addition to mentors being available
24/7, youth have access to on site community partners
who are part of the Street Youth Planning Collaborative.
Common living
room in Stage
1 unit.
Bachelor unit
in Stage 2.
88
In Stage 2 of the program young people move into
an individual bachelor apartments. Youth in this stage
continue to have access to support from mentors,
but are provided with an increased opportunity to
practice their newly developed skills and independence.
When young people feel ready to leave, they are
assisted in obtaining housing in the community.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
→ Transitional Housing for Youth
The form and program model of transitional housing should be designed to meet
the differing needs of young people; this also includes the type of housing and
facility. In many transitional housing programs, young people live in a dedicated
shared facility, with around-the-clock support. Ideally, young people should have
access to either individual or shared rooms (depending on age or need) and there
should also be common recreational and social spaces. The congregate living
environment is important for some youth, who will benefit from the companionship
and a higher level of day-to-day support. This kind of institutionally-based
arrangement is most likely preferable for younger teens. For instance, a 14, or
even a 16 year old, may require the supports of a transitional housing program
for several years (and certainly more than one), plus potentially aftercare support.
This first stage is just part of the accommodation pathway for a young person who
becomes homeless.
There are also transitional housing models that are not institutionally-based that
offer a more decentered or dispersed scattered site approach to accommodation.
For young people who are adverse to institutional-like environments, such
transitional housing means that young people live independently or in small
groups and that the necessary supports are portable. The advantage of such an
innovation is that it supports people in their transition from homelessness, gives
them greater control over their tenure and is an alternative to an institutional
living environment (Novac et al., 2009; Nesselbuch, 1998). Particularly for young
people leaving care (group homes) or juvenile detention this may be more
suitable. At the same time, what distinguishes transitional housing from enhanced
accommodation (below) is that young people do not control the lease, although
there are models that enable lease conversion (that is, over a period of time, a
young person may take over the lease). Finally, it is important to consider the
location of housing, for as Karabanow & Naylor identified, many young people
struggling to leave the streets prefer housing that is removed from the areas
where street youth congregate, lowering the risk of a return to street involvement
(Karabanow & Naylor, 2013).
One of the challenges of all transitional housing models is negotiating a smooth
move from interim housing to independent living. One innovation to facilitate
this transition involves the use of convertible leases. Young individuals with little
independent living experience may prefer a housing option where they are not
responsible for the lease at the beginning. However in time, and as they develop
greater independence, there is an opportunity for the lease to be transferred to the
youth so that they don’t have to move and depending on their need, some levels
of supports continue. The advantage of this approach to transitional housing is
that there is no set length of stay and young people are able to assert more control
and independence as they age. This approach to transitional housing has been
implemented in a few Canadian settings (Eberle, 2007; Millar, 2009). In Australia,
the Youth Head Lease Transfer Scheme (now part of the “Same House, Different
Landlord” scheme) has been in place for several decades (Leebeck, 2009). This
“convertible lease” program has evolved over time and evaluations have shown
its effectiveness in supporting formerly homeless youth to move to independent
living (Queensland Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning, 1994).
In addition, when young people leave such housing to move into independent
living, they are often able to take their furniture with them.
89
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
→ Transitional Housing for Youth
As we move forward in creating more effective responses to youth homelessness,
transitional housing should be configured in such a way as to provide a young
person with longer-term supports in order to build life skills and enhance individual
capacity to become economically self-sufficient and socially integrated into the
community. Unlike previous models that limit residency, these supports should
be highly flexible and not time limited, based on the age at which a young person
enters a program and their need. A recent Homeless Hub report, “Live, Learn and
Grow” (Gaetz & Scott, 2012), articulates a model for the broader adaptation of the
Foyer in the Canadian context (see below).
The Foyer
The Foyer is a particularly appealing example of innovation
in transitional housing and offers an integrated living model
where young people are housed for a longer period of time
than is typically the case, are offered living skills and are
either enrolled in education or training, or are employed. It
is a transitional housing model for youth that has attained
great popularity in the UK, Australia and elsewhere. It can
offer inspiration for how we might address the housing
needs of homeless youth and in particular younger teens and
those leaving care (child protection) or juvenile detention.
The Foyer model is currently being piloted in at least two
Canadian cities (Calgary and Edmonton), in ways that
adapt the model to our context and integrate important
innovations.
The Foyer is a model of accommodation for which there is a
body of research that attests to its effectiveness. According to
the Live, Learn and Grow report, key philosophical principles
of a Canadian Foyer should include:
A focus on helping disadvantaged young people who are
homeless or in housing need–including young people
leaving care–to achieve the transition to adulthood and
- from dependence to independence.
A developmentally-appropriate environment to build
- competence and a feeling of achievement.
A holistic approach to meeting the young person’s needs
- based on an understanding of adolescent development.
A formal plan and agreement between the Foyer and
young person as to how the Foyer’s facilities and
local community resources will be used in making the
- transition to adulthood.
A supported transition that is not time limited, in which
90
- young people can practice independent living.
An investment in education, training, life skills and
meaningful engagement in order to improve long-term
- life chances.
The provision of a community of peers and caring adults
- with emphasis on peer mentoring.
The provision of necessary and appropriate aftercare
to ensure successful transitions to adulthood and
independent living. (Gaetz & Smith, 2012:27).
So, in exchange for services tailored to their needs, young
people entering a Foyer are expected to actively engage in
their own development and make a positive contribution to
their local community. The nature of this exchange depends
very much on the individual, where they have come from,
the barriers they are facing and their aspirations for the
future.
Some key features of the Foyer that make it stand apart from
more traditional models of transitional housing include: a)
the intensive focus on enhancing educational opportunities,
recognizing the importance of education to young people’s
life chances and b) the length of stay is extended beyond
one year. This latter point is important and represents a
radical shift from what is more typical practice in Canada.
It recognizes that time-limited stays in transitional housing
make no sense in terms of adolescent development. While
the length of stay in Foyers in the UK is typically two years,
the Live, Learn and Grow report recommends that young
people be permitted to stay as long as they need to, up to the
age of 24.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Live, Learn, Grow: Supporting
Transitions to Adulthood for
Homeless Youth
This report reflects on the possibilities of adapting and in fact improving on, the
Foyer model for the Canadian context. The first section of the report provides
an overview of the challenges homeless youth face in securing and maintaining
housing, to be followed by an analysis of the role that transitional housing can play
in supporting young people as they move forward with their lives. In the second
section, the underlying philosophy of the Foyer is explored, key components
are explained and the research on program effectiveness is examined. The final
section of the report provides a framework for the Foyer that identifies how this
model can be adapted and implemented in the Canadian context. The proposed
framework does not simply replicate what has been developed elsewhere, but
rather seeks to incorporate recent developments in housing responses for young
people who have experienced homelessness and embed it in the Canadian context.
To find out more:
Case Study: Boys and Girls Club of
Calgary–The Infinity Project
- Homeless Hub, 2013
Foyer Toolkit
The toolkit we have developed is designed to assist communities in adapting this
model to their local context. It is intended to give service providers and policy
makers an essential understanding of the key components necessary for developing
a successful Foyer. This material will be particularly useful if you are starting a
Foyer and need to brief funders, staff etc., on the basics of Foyers for youth.
The Foyer Toolkit contains the following sections:
- What is a Foyer?
- The Foyer and Transitions to Adulthood
- The Philosophy and Principles of the Foyer
- Foyer Essentials Part 1: The Program
- Foyer Essentials Part 2: Accommodation
- Foyer Essentials Part 3: Organizational Framework
- Foyer Case Studies
- Resources from the Foyer Federation
To find out more, go to the Homeless Hub:
http://www.homelesshub.ca/foyer
91
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
Independent Living
Whether leaving home for the first time, exiting the shelter system or graduating
from transitional housing, the pathway a young person takes on the road to
adulthood should eventually lead to some kind of independent living. The key
focus of support is to help young people access suitable and appropriate housing
in the first place and to provide a range of supports including financial support (if
a down payment and/or furnishings are required) that help young people sustain
their housing and avoid another episode of homelessness.
There are some interesting lessons from programs that support young people
to live independently. A common underlying theme is that no program can work
effectively if there is not an inadequate supply of affordable housing. The Canadian
Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) defines a household as being in “core
housing need” if its housing: “falls below at least one of the adequacy, affordability
or suitability standards and would have to spend 30% or more of its total beforetax income to pay the median rent of alternative local housing that is acceptable
(meets all three housing standards).” (CMHC, 2012) In a tight housing market,
young people may face age discrimination and/or lack the earning potential to
support their housing needs. As a larger percentage of income goes to pay for
housing, there is less left for fundamental needs such as food. This suggests that
responses to youth homelessness that focus on independent living must both work
to increase the supply of affordable housing in the community, but must also focus
on ensuring that young people have the necessary income supports to obtain and
maintain housing.
There are different approaches to supporting young people to move into
independent living. In the UK, they speak about ‘Move on’ options when referring
to the need to move young people out of emergency shelters and into independent
living as quickly as possible. They recognize that young people, particularly
those under the age of 18, face substantial barriers to obtaining accommodation,
including age discrimination, legal barriers, problems accessing benefits,
insufficient income and of course a shortage of affordable or acceptable housing.
92
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
→ Independent Living
It is believed to be crucial to begin planning an accommodation pathway at the
earliest stage of engagement with young people who are homeless, or at risk of
being homeless. This may include supportive housing options or independent
living. On the National Youth Homelessness Scheme website (UK), they define the
hallmarks of effective move-on options as including:
- “A range of options, which reflect the differing needs and aspirations of
young people
- Availability of floating support for young people after leaving supported
accommodation
- Social and private housing stock which meets minimum standards–benchmarks
such as the Decent Homes Standard are supported by the local authority and
partners in all sectors
- Issues about the location and safety of the accommodation are considered
- Affordability issues are considered and help offered to maximize income,
overcome the barriers to affordable housing for young people and facilitate
savings for future housing needs
- A range of stakeholders are involved with planning, developing and managing
this part of the accommodation pathway for young people
- A strategic approach is used, through local homelessness strategies, Supporting
People plans and the working groups which oversee implementation of these
- Support staff are well-informed about the wide range of options available to
young people and information, practical advice and support is provided through
a pathway planning approach to support young people in developing their
individual abilities and interests”.
(National Youth Homelessness Scheme, as quoted in Youth Homelessness North East.
http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/move-on-event-3rd-april-2012/)
Models of enhanced accommodation provide young people with a greater
opportunity for more independent living, but enable them to obtain the flexible,
individualized supports they need. Sometimes referred to as floating supports or
tenancy sustainment, such supports are designed to enable young people with
medium and low needs to live independently, by providing them with practical
and personal support that is very much linked to their individual needs. For
those with higher needs, tenant (floating) support workers can also act in a case
management capacity and can help young people access the services they need,
as they move to greater and greater levels of independence. In the UK, a key part
of the accommodation and support strategy for youth involves floating supports.
An extensive evaluation identified that there is considerable evidence of the cost
effectiveness of floating supports in terms of:
- Reducing rent arrears
- Prevention of tenancy breakdown and the resulting costs
- The reduction of hospital admissions (for people with mental health problems)
- The timely discharge of older people from hospital
- The reduction of re-offending rates
- Addressing anti-social behaviour
Preventing truancy costs
(Communities and Local Government, 2008: 6)
93
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
→ Independent Living
As the young person grows older, matures and develops skills for independent
living, the level of supports may decrease or end altogether. However, for a smaller
sub-population (young people with a serious mental illness, disability or addictions
challenge), the supports may be continuous, long-term or even permanent. Finally,
for some youth there may be a direct transition from shelters or living with parents
to independent living with minimal or no external supports. This is probably more
the case for older youth who have lived independently in the past, have sufficient life
skills, education and employment experience to allow them to sustain themselves.
A key goal of dispersed models of enhanced accommodation (as well as
transitional housing) is the focus on community integration. That is, rather
than have a separate facility, helping young people obtain accommodation
in neighbourhoods of their own choosing may reduce stigma, encourage
development of relationships within the community and enhance youth
engagement. This is in line with the conceptualization of supported housing
that articulates the underlying values as being empowerment and community
integration (Parkinson et al., 1999; Nelson et al., 2001; Parkinson and Nelson, 2003;
Kirsch et al., 2009).
“It is a strength-focused approach that provides considerable choice to residents
over housing, living companions and daily activities. Receiving treatment is not a
requirement and the role of the landlord and the support provider are separated
or “de-linked”. However, supports and rehabilitative services are often accessed
as desired by individuals to help them stay in their home and participate in their
communities.” (Kirsch et al. 2009:13)
94
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Accommodation and Supports ━ Accommodation Options for Youth
6.2
Housing First—Does it Work for Young People?
In Canada, Housing First is quickly being accepted as an
effective response to homelessness, and there is a substantial
body of research on its effectiveness both as a philosophy
underlying planned responses to homelessness and as a
program or intervention. The At Home/Chez Soi project
funded by the Mental Health Commission of Canada is
the most extensive research project ever conducted on
Housing First. It has answered a lot of important questions
about the efficacy of the model. In addition, the recent book
Housing First in Canada: Supporting Communities to End
Homelessness (Gaetz, et al., 2013) provides a framework for
communities to understand the concept, plus a number of
case studies that chart the development and implementation
of the model in different communities. However, until recently
there has been very little research on its applications to subpopulations (outside of people with mental illness/ addictions),
including youth.
Nevertheless, as Housing First grows in popularity, several
places in Canada–including Toronto, Halifax, Vancouver,
Calgary and Edmonton–are experimenting with its
applicability to young people. For instance, in Vancouver,
Directions Youth Services Centre has adopted a Housing
First approach for homeless youth aged 19-24. Young people
in the program receive support over a two-year period to
find, acquire and maintain housing. The program focuses on
developing individualized housing and life-skills plans for each
youth participant. Youth workers work closely with the youth
to evaluate their success and ensure their housing issues and
conflicts are addressed. In Calgary, both the Boys and Girls
Club (see next page) and Woods Homes have implemented
Housing First programs for youth, with promising results after
the first year (minimum 85 per cent housing retention rate).
So a question that can be asked is whether or not the success
of Housing first renders other models of accommodation
and support irrelevant? Because the dearth of research on
the relevance of this model for youth makes answering that
question difficult, we are learning things that suggest that
while the underlying philosophy of Housing First should be
embraced (that homeless youth should be provided with
housing without preconditions), as a program it may not
be appropriate or effective for all youth or in all contexts.
Emerging research on a youth-focused program in London,
Ontario suggests that while many young people thrive in a
Housing First context, it does not work for everyone. Those
with mental health and addictions issues (or a combination
of both) in some cases find that the choice and independence
offered by the model were too much to handle and could
be experienced as a ‘set up for failure’ (Forchuk et al., 2013).
That is, some young people felt that independent living
was isolating and may become an enabling environment
95
for drug use and therefore would prefer to address other
developmental/health issues prior to independent living.
Forchuk and her team conclude that a ‘one size fits all’
approach proposed by some advocates is actually quite
limiting and ignores the incredible variability in needs and
circumstances of young people who are homeless.
“The social, cultural, financial and existential (i.e., the
perceived meaning of one’s existence and place in the
world, as well as how this meaning may influence the
decisions one makes) situations of the study’s participants
are very different.”
(Forchuk et al., 2013:113)
To consider Housing First in the context of adolescence and
young adulthood, one must also recognize other concerns. In
a tight housing market with little affordable housing, young
people face age discrimination that may mean accessing
housing is more difficult. Additionally, when considering the
goal of working with homeless youth is successful transition
to adulthood, one must consider the age and developmental
appropriateness of putting youth into Housing First programs.
The independence that is simultaneously required by and
fostered through, Housing First may undermine other
developmental goals and challenges, such as obtaining an
education. Having to focus on earning enough money to
live independently and to run a house, may unwittingly shift
the priorities of young people in the program, away from
education which will have long lasting benefits, towards the
short-term need of paying the rent.
So, Housing First is clearly a viable, effective and preferred
option for some youth, but not all. As we move forward,
the task of reconciling the emphasis on Housing First with
the need to consider transitional housing models such as
the Foyer must be addressed. It is possible to consider, in
the case of youth, that transitional housing can be part of a
Housing First approach, providing that there is a pathway
from transitional housing into permanent housing. As part of
a spectrum of options for accommodation and support, it is
worth being reminded that ‘Housing First’ should also mean
‘Preference First’ (Forchuk, 2012).
In the coming year, the Canadian Homelessness Research
Network will be releasing a Framework for Housing First
for Youth, which will draw from existing research plus
extensive consultations with members of the Street Youth
Planning Collaborative (Hamilton) and the National Learning
Community on Youth Homelessness. Here, a framework
identifies the appropriate models of housing and support that
are required to plan and implement a Housing First strategy
embedded in a youth development perspective.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
The Infinity Project
Boys and Girls Club of Calgary
The Infinity Project, run by the Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary, is an
innovative Housing First project for young people 16-24 years of age. The
goal of the program is to help youth become permanently housed and to
increase and maintain self-sufficiency. Young people are assessed and then
supported to obtain housing throughout the City. Though many young people
were able to contribute to rent through income earned or through benefit
programs, these funds were generally not adequate to cover monthly living
expenses and most youth still required substantial rental subsidies.
The Infinity Project does more than merely facilitate access to housing. They
work to prepare young people for self sufficiency (obtaining and maintaining a
stable source of income) and for productive adult living. The latter is achieved
through facilitating reconnection with family and natural supports where
safe and appropriate, exploring community resources and opportunities with
youth in their community, supporting youth to attend community events,
identifying interests with the youth and exploring opportunities for them
to become involved in programming, facilitating referrals or volunteering,
exploring with youth their educational and career goals, helping youth
locate education or training programs to meet their goals, providing referral
and advocacy as needed and assisting youth in system navigation.
With a small core staff, the Infinity Project is embedded within a partnership
model that helps meet the individual needs of young people in the program. The
program incorporates many of the four pillars identified on page 86, including
facilitating reconnection with family and natural supports, community engagement
and supporting young people in working towards educational and career goals.
The Infinity program adopts a case management approach to support young people
and utilizes the Outcomes Star to help young people navigate stages of change
(and also for the purposes of program evaluation). At the end of the first year of
the pilot program, Infinity has begun to show impressive results. Ninety-six per
cent of participants remained housed, in part because of the Boys and Girls Clubs’
philosophy of “zero discharge into homelessness”.This means that if housing
breaks down due to a crisis, behavioural challenges or other issues, young people
will not find themselves on the streets, but rather alternative accommodations
will be secured. All young people in the program were involved in community
activities and over 85% of the youth were able to access more targeted community
activities and supports. The ability to provide necessary supports to youth with
higher needs is also a key marker of the success of this program. Fifty per cent of
the youth in the program (in 2011) were able to access mental health and addictions
support and some made the choice to attend a residential treatment program.
96
To find out more:
Case Study: Boys and Girls Club of
Calgary–The Infinity Project
- Homeless Hub, 2013
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Emergency Services ━ Conclusion
6.3
Conclusion
Appropriate options for accommodation and supports are a final and key
component for an effective strategy to end youth homelessness. Yet in thinking
about accommodation, once again it is crucial that we don’t simply adapt in
problematic ways models designed for adults. The housing and accommodation
needs of adolescents and young adults are complex and distinct and tied to
a whole range of important developmental tasks that require age-appropriate
supports. The goal, once again, is not merely to become independent but to
successfully nurture a transition to adulthood and well-being.
97
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
1.3
Conclusion
7.0
It is worth asking, is this the best we can do? Are young people
who become homeless destined to spend years in the shelter
system mired in the street youth lifestyle, languishing in
poverty and vulnerable of exploitation? Are there other ways of
thinking about these options? The good news is that there are
real, practical solutions to youth homelessness and these can
be applied in communities across the country.
For the past several decades, Canada has been struggling
with the problem of homelessness and in particular,
youth homelessness. Many–but not all–communities have
responded by developing community-based emergency
services, many of which are undoubtedly excellent and
do play an important role in alleviating some of the
worst outcomes of homelessness. In most cases they
clearly understand the need to do something about youth
homelessness, but only rarely are these services coordinated
in an integrated and strategic way. At times it does not seem
that we are making a huge impact on homelessness, or
reducing it as a problem (Segaert, 2012).
It is worth asking, is this the best we can do? Are young
people who become homeless destined to spend years in the
shelter system mired in the street youth lifestyle, languishing
in poverty and vulnerable of exploitation? Are there other
ways of thinking about these options?
The good news is that there are real, practical solutions
to youth homelessness and these can be applied in
communities across the country. The best solutions to youth
homelessness must necessarily be based on evidence,
by understanding the problem through research and by
identifying innovative and promising practices that can be
applied in different contexts. In writing this report, then,
the intent was twofold. The first purpose was to review
98
and present what we know from research about youth
homelessness. This growing body of research both enhances
our understanding of youth homelessness, its causes and
conditions (Gaetz et al., 2013) and also points to effective
interventions and responses.
The second purpose of this report is to present a practical
framework for ending youth homelessness. The ideas that
inform this framework are based on a review of what we
know about addressing youth homelessness, drawing on
academic research, program evaluations and a broad range
of policies, strategies and plans from Canada, the United
States, Australia and the United Kingdom. This review points
to something interesting that is happening around the
world. There is an emerging convergence of approaches,
based on both years of trial and error and evaluation. This
convergence centers around the knowledge that successful
strategies to address youth homelessness must be built upon
the need to reorient national, regional and local responses
to homelessness away from managing or responding to
homelessness, to one that focuses on ending homelessness.
That is, we need to shift our focus from providing only
emergency services, such as shelters and day programs
(which may unnecessarily prolong the experience of
homelessness), to one that emphasizes prevention on the one
hand and moving people out of homelessness as quickly as
possible on the other.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Conclusion ━ Conclusion
→
7.0
Conclusion
So, how do we get there? A strategic response to youth homelessness is built upon
five basic themes:
First, that it is possible to prevent and end youth homelessness through developing
and implementing a plan, with clear objectives and targets. Effective strategic
responses attempt to reduce a problem, rather than just manage it. Australia and
the UK have strong national plans and investments which support communities
in responding to youth homelessness. The “Ten Year Plans to End Homelessness”
model, pioneered in the United States and championed by the Canadian Alliance
to End Homelessness, has been shown to be successful and is now being taken up
by a number of communities in Canada. Every community should have a similar
strategic response and plan to end youth homelessness.
Second, youth homelessness can only be effectively tackled through an integrated
“system of care”. Evidence suggests that the most successful responses to youth
homelessness are strategic and coordinated, placing a much greater emphasis on
prevention and moving people out of homelessness as quickly as possible. This is
best achieved through the coordination and integration of programs, services and
service delivery systems (both within and external to the homelessness sector) at
every level–from policy, to service provision, to case management and client flow—
based on client need. We can no longer rely on an ad-hoc collection of programs
and services as our response. That approach is not a system and there isn’t clear
evidence that it actually reduces homelessness. Nor can we consider the solution to
youth homelessness to be the responsibility of the homelessness sector alone.
Third, there is a need for active, strategic and coordinated engagement by all
levels of government and for interdepartmental collaboration. In countries with
evidence of success, there is recognition that all levels of government must be
actively engaged in addressing youth homelessness. Different levels of government
(including Aboriginal) have different resources and responsibilities. The federal
government has a constitutional responsibility for housing and justice (shared
with provinces) and flows funds for social and health programs to the provinces.
Provincial governments fund and coordinate health care, corrections, child
protection, income supports, education, housing and a number of other sectors
that impact on youth homelessness. Cities and rural areas are where people live
and municipal governments often provide direct services including responses to
homelessness. All of these government interventions support the non-profit and
private sectors to make a contribution to ending homelessness as well.
Fourth, it is essential to adopt a youth development orientation. The causes of
youth homelessness are distinct from those of adults. Homeless youth typically lack
the experience and skills to live independently. Many homeless youth are leaving
the care of child welfare services. Many homeless youth will also be in the midst of
important physical, psychological and emotional developmental changes. For these
reasons, a strategy–and the services that support this strategy–must be distinct
from the adult sector.
99
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Conclusion ━ Conclusion
7.0
→ Conclusion
A strategy to end youth homelessness must be based on the needs of developing
youth and young adults. There is a wide body of research that shows successful
physical, psychological, emotional and social transitions from childhood to
adulthood require attention to nutrition, strong adult support (including mentoring),
a focus on educational engagement, attainment and well-being, opportunities
to experiment and explore (and to make mistakes), learning to nurture healthy
adult relationships (including sexual relationships), the gradual learning of skills
and competencies relating to living independently, obtaining a job, etc. Not only
are there developmental differences to take account of, but the diversity of the
population–in terms of gender, sexual orientation and racism–also shape this
experience.
The goal of any response should not merely be to help young people become
independent, but rather, to assist and support their transition to adulthood and a
safe, meaningful and successful life. Case management approaches can support
youth transitions. As part of this process, young people need to be active and
informed decision makers in their system-supported pathways to health adulthood.
Fifth, effective plans must necessarily incorporate research, data gathering and
information sharing. In the UK, the United States and Australia, there is a much
stronger commitment to the use of research and data gathering as part of their
strategic responses to youth homelessness than there is in Canada. This focus
should also be the case in Canada. Elements of a research-based strategy include:
- Information and data management systems to support service integration, case
management and monitoring progress.
- Basic research on youth homelessness, focusing on the causes, lived experience
and solutions, which makes for better policy and practice.
- Instituting a culture of evaluation in the sector (and ensuring that there are
necessary resources and capacity to support this work), so that we can identify
both effective practices and program models but also measure progress.
- Employing mechanisms to document and share effective practices, both within
and between countries.
100
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Conclusion ━ Moving Forward
7.1
Moving Forward
The solutions to youth homelessness do exist. If we apply
the best knowledge we have to developing strategic and
coordinated responses, we can end youth homelessness as a
problem in Canada.
There are indeed solutions to youth homelessness. The review of programs and
practices from Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States
reveals that innovation and passion combined with solid research evidence can
lead to good results. Many Canadian communities and provincial governments
are now interested in moving towards strategic responses to addressing the
problem including understanding how we can stop the flow of young people from
child protection, mental health facilities or juvenile detention into homelessness,
identifying a stronger role for schools as part of the solution, helping families
become stronger and offering young people a way back home. We also
understand that many young people can no longer return home or in some
cases have no home to go to. For these young people we need strong models of
accommodation and supports that will help them move forward with their lives.
Underlying all of this is the need to make some broader changes in Canadian
society. We need to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing.
We need to ensure young people have the opportunity to earn a sufficient
income to pay the rent, purchase food and have fulfilling lives and / or receive
rent supplements if they cannot earn a living wage. We must ensure every young
person has the opportunity to go to school and fulfill his or her dreams. And
finally, we must work towards a society where young women, as well as LGBTQ
youth and those who experience racism, can live in a world where who you are
is not a limiting factor and where all young people can achieve their potential.
The solutions to youth homelessness do exist. If we apply the best knowledge
we have to developing strategic and coordinated responses, we can end youth
homelessness as a problem in Canada.
101
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References
1.3
Abramovich, A. (2012). No safe place to go–LGBTQ youth homelessness in Canada: Reviewing the literature. Canadian Journal of
Family and Youth, 4(1), 29-51.
Abramovich, A. (2013). No fixed address: Young, queer and restless. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow &
A. Marsolais, (Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 387-403. Toronto: Canadian
Homelessness Research Network Press.
Adlaf, E. M. & Zdanowicz, Y. M. (1999). A cluster-analytic study of substance problems and mental health among street youths.
American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 25(4), 639-60.
Alone in London. (2011). Impact Report: 2010/11. Retrieved from: http://www.aloneinlondon.org/about/impact-report,2042,LA.html
Altschuler, D.M. & Armstrong, T.L. (1994). Intensive aftercare for high-risk juveniles: A community care model, program summary.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.
Amster, R. (2004). Street people and the contested realms of public space. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.
Anda, R., Felitti, V., Bremner, J.D., Walker, J., Whitfield, C., Perry, B. et al. (2006). The enduring effects of abuse and related adverse
experiences in childhood. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256, 174-186.
Andres-Lemay, V. J., Jamieson, E. & MacMillan H. L. (2005). Child abuse, psychiatric disorder and running away in a community
sample of women. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry–Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie, 50(11), 684-689.
Australian Government. (2008a). The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness. Canberra, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Australian Government. (2008b). Which Way Home? A New Approach to Homelessness. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2009). Housing
Assistance and Homelessness Prevention: Reconnect Operational Guidelines. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of
Australia.
Australian Government. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. (2013). Reconnect
Departmental review. Phase 2 evaluation: Departmental review of the Reconnect program. Canberra, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government. Department of Family and Community Services. (2003). ‘I’m looking at the future’ Evaluation Report of
Reconnect. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Australian Government. Senate Community Affairs References Committee. (2005). Protecting Vulnerable Children: A National
Challenge. Canberra, Australia: Senate Printing Unit, Commonwealth of Australia.
Baker Collins, S. (2013). Childhood stress and mobility among rural homeless youth. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J.
Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 53-74. Toronto:
Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Ballon, B. C., Courbasson, C. M. & Smith, P. D. (2001). Physical and sexual abuse issues among youths with substance use
problems. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46(7), 617-21.
Barnaby, L., Penn, R. & Erikson, P. (2010). Drugs, Homelessness & Health: Homeless Youth Speak Out About Harm Reduction. The
Shout Clinic Harm Reduction Report, 2010. Toronto: Shout Clinic and Central Toronto Community Health Centres
Baron, S. (2013). Why street youth become involved in crime. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais
(Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 353-368. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness
Research Network Press.
Baskin, C. (2007). Aboriginal youth talk about structural determinants as the causes of their homelessness. First Peoples Child and
Family Review, 3(3), 31-42.
Baskin, C. (2013). Shaking off the colonial inheritance: Indigenous youth resist, reclaim and reconnect. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K.
Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 405-443.
Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
102
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Baumgartner-Burt
REF
→ References
Baumgartner, J., Herman, D. (2012). Community integration of formerly homeless men and women with severe mental illness
after hospital discharge. Psychiatric Services, 63:435-7. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201100392
Beer, A. & Randolph, B. (2006). Youth homelessness in rural Australia. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute: Research
& Policy Bulletin, 82, 1-4.
Beer, A., Delfabbro, P., Oakley, S., Verity, F., Natalier, K., Packer, J. & Bass, A. (2005). Developing models of good practice in
meeting the needs of homeless young people in rural areas (AHURI Position Paper No. 62). Report prepared for Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute, Southern Research Centre, Australia.
Belanger, Y., Weasel Head, G. & Awosoga, O. (2012). Assessing Urban Aboriginal Housing and Homelessness in Canada. Ottawa:
National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) and the Office of the Federal Interlocuter for Métis and Non-Status
Indians (OFI), Ottawa, Ontario
Bellot, C., Chesnay, C., Royer, M. N. & Sylvestre, M. E. (2008). Research highlights drawn from the report: Penalization of
Homeless Individuals in Ontario.
Bellot, C., Raffestin, I., Royer, M. N. & Noël, V. (2005). Judiciarisation et criminalisation des populations itinérantes à Montréal.
Montréal QC: Rapport de recherche pour le Secrétariat National des Sans-abri.
Bellot, C., Sylvestre, M., St. Jacques, B. (2011). Commitment and participation in research: a collective action to defend the rights
of homeless people against anti-disorder policing practices in Montreal. UBC Press
Bender, K., Thompson, S. J., McManus, H., Lantry, J. & Flynn, P. M. (2007). Capacity for survival: Exploring strengths of homeless
street youth. Child Youth Care Forum, 36, 25-42.
Biehal, N., Clayden, J., Stein, M. & Wade, J. (1995). Moving on: Young people and leaving care schemes. London: HMSO
Boivin, J.F., Roy, E., Haley, N. & Galbaud du Fort, G. (2005). The health of street youth: A Canadian perspective. Canadian Journal
of Public Health, 96(6), 432-437.
Bond, S. (2010). Integrated service delivery for young people: A literature review. Victoria, Australia: Brotherhood of St. Lawrence.
Braitstein, P., Li, K., Tyndall, M., Spittal, P., O’Shaughnessy, M. V., Schilder, A., Johnston. C., Hogg, R. S. & Schechter, M. T. (2003).
Sexual violence among a cohort of injection drug users. Social Science Medicine, 57(3), 561-9.
Bridgman, R. (2009). The Peel youth village: Designing transitional housing for homeless suburban youth. In J. D. Hulchanski, P.
Campsie, S. Chau, S. Hwang & E. Paradis (Eds.), Finding home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada
(Chapter 3.7.). Toronto, ON: Cities Centre, University of Toronto.
Brown, J., Knol, D., Prevost-Derbecker, S. & Andrushko, K. (2007). Housing for Aboriginal youth in the inner city of Winnipeg. First
Peoples Child and Family Review, 3(2), 56-64.
Buccieri , K. (2013b). Waldo 101: Mapping the intersection of space, place and gender in the lives of ten homeless youth. In S.
Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy
and practice, 425-444.Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Buccieri, K. (2013a). Back to the future for Canada’s national anti-drug strategy: Homeless youth and the need for harm reduction.
An issue for everyone’s backyard: The case for youth-focused harm reduction policies and practices in Canada. In S. Gaetz,
B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and
practice, 199-216. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Building Changes (2012). Priority Action Steps to Prevent and End Youth/Young Adult Homelessness: An Implementation Plan.
Seattle, WA: Committee to End Homelessness in King County (CEHKC).
Bullen, J. (2010). From transitional housing models to permanent housing models for homeless people: A paradigm shift. Parity
(Melbourne), 23(7), 5-7.
Burt, M. (2007). Testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing
and Community Opportunity. Reauthorization of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, Hearing October 11, 2007.
Retrieved from: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/901120_homeless_assistance.pdf
103
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Burt-Communities and Local Government
REF
→ References
Burt, M., Pearson, C. & Montgomery, A. (2006). Strategies for preventing homelessness. Washington: Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Burt, M., Pearson, C. & Montgomery, A. (2007). Community-Wide Strategies for Preventing Homelessness: Recent Evidence.
The Journal of Primary Prevention, 28(3-4), 213-228.
Calgary Committee to End Homelessness. (2008). Calgary’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness. Calgary AB: Calgary Committee
to End Homelessness
Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2011). Plan to End youth Homelessness in Calgary. Calgary, AB: Calgary Homeless Foundation.
Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2012). Calgary Homeless System of Care: System Planning Framework (DRAFT). Calgary, AB:
Calgary Homeless Foundation.
Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness. (2012). A Plan Not A Dream: How to End Homelessness in 10 Years. Calgary, AB:
Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness.
Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse. (2009). Discussion Forum: Supervised Injection Site Evaluative Research–Forum
Summary Report. Ottawa, Ontario.
Canadian Homelessness Research Network. (2013). Case Study: Choices for Youth Train for Trades. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K.
Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 311322. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Canadian Homelessness Research Network. (2012). Canadian Definition of Homelessness. Retrieved from www.homelesshub.
ca/CHRNhomelessdefinition/
Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. (2012). Ending Youth Homelessness–A CHRA Policy Position Statement. Ottawa,
ON: Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness.
Canadian Mental Health Association. (no date). Facts about Mental Illness. Retreived from: http://www.cmha.ca/media/fastfacts-about-mental-illness/#.UVy2SBkma_U
Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2004). Transitional Housing: Objectives, Indicators of Success and Outcomes.
Canada: Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Centres of Excellence for Children’s Well-being. (2004). What is Youth Engagement? Retrieved from http://www.tgmag.ca/aorg/
pdf/Whatis_WEB_e.pdf
Chamberlain, C. & MacKenzie, D. (1998). Youth Homelessness: Early Intervention & Prevention. Erskineville, New South Wales:
Australian Centre for Equity through Education.
Choudhury, S., Blakemore, S-J. & Charman, T. (2006). Social cognitive development during adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 1(3), 165–174.
Christie, D. & Viner, R. (2005). Adolescent development. British Medical Journal, 330(7486), 301–304.
Chunn, D. & Gavigan, S. (2004). Welfare law, welfare fraud and the moral regulation of the ‘never deserving” poor. Social and Legal
Studies, 13, 219-43.
Clay, N. (2008, May). Its Time, Its Overdue and It Can Be Fixed. Speech at the Homelessness Australia Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
Cochran, B.N., Stewart, A. J., Ginzler, J. A. & Cauce, A. M. (2002). Challenges Faced by Homeless Sexual Minorities: Comparison of Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Homeless Adolescents With Their Heterosexual Counterparts. American Journal of Public
Health, 92(5), 773-777.
Common Ground Community and Good Sheppard Services. (2009). The Chelsea Foyer at the Christopher at Five Years: Lessons
in Developing Stable Housing and Self-Sufficiency For Homeless Youth and Youth Exiting Foster Care. New York, NY: Good
Shepherd Services.
Communities and Local Government. (2008). Research into the effectiveness of floating support services for the Supporting People
programme. Final Report. London : Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
104
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Côté-Forchuk
REF
→ References
Côté, J. & Bynner, J. M. (2008). Changes in transition to adulthood in the UK and Canada: The role of structure and agency in
emerging adulthood. Journal of Youth Studies, 11(3), 251-263.
Courtney, M. E., Piliavin, L. P., Grogran-Kaylor, A. & Nast, A. (2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view
of youth leaving foster care. Child Welfare, 70(6), 685-718.
Courtney, M. E., Skyles, A., Miranda, G., Zinn, A., Howard, E. & Goerge, R. (2005). Youth who run away from substitute care:
Chapin hall working paper. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago.
Crosnoe, R., Erickson, K. G. & Dornbusch, S. M. (2002). Protective functions of family relationships and school factors on the
deviant behaviour of adolescent boys and girls: Reducing the impact of risky friendships. Youth & Society, 33(4), 515-544.
Culhane, D., Metraux, S. & T. Byrne. (2010). A Prevention-Centered Approach to Homelessness Assistance: A Paradigm Shift?
Housing Policy Debate 21.2 (2011): 295-315.
Dachner, N. and Tarasuk, V. (2013). Homeless youth, nutritional vulnerability and community food assistance programs. In S.
Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for
policy and practice, 131-145. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Delgado, M. & Staples, L. (2008). Youth-Led Community Organizing: Theory and Action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
DeLisi, M. (2000). Who is more dangerous? Comparing the criminality of adult homeless and domiciled jail inmates: A research
note. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 59 69.
Department of Education. (2004). Every Child Matters–Change for Children.
London, UK: The Stationary Office.
Department of Human Services. (2010). Enhanced Accommodation and Support Models for Young People, With an Emphasis
on Participation in Employment, Education & Training: Discussion Paper. Melbourne, Australia: Department of Human
Services. Retrieved from: http://www.housing.vic.gov.au
Dickens, S. & Woodfield, K. (2004). New approaches to youth homelessness prevention: A qualitative evaluation of the Safe in
the City cluster schemes. United Kingdom: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Dorn, L. D., Biro, F. M. (2011). Puberty and Its Measurement: A Decade in Review. [Review]. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 180–195.
Douglas, J. (2011). The criminalization of poverty: Montreal’s policy of ticketing homeless youth for municipal and
transportation bylaw infractions. Appeal, 16(1), 49-65.
Dworsky, A. & Courtney, M. (2009). Homelessness and the transition from foster care to adulthood. Child Welfare, 88(4), 23–56.
Eberle Planning and Research, Kraus, D. & Woodward, J. (2007). Vancouver Youth Housing Options Study. Vancouver, BC:
Vancouver Youth Funders Table.
Esmonde, J. (2002). Criminalizing poverty: The criminal law power and the Safe Streets Act. Journal of Law and Social Policy, 17, 63-86
Eva’s Initiatives. (2009). Family Reconnection Strategic Plan. Toronto, ON: Author
Evans, A. (1996). We Don’t Choose to be Homeless: Report of the National Inquiry into Preventing Youth
Homelessness . London: CHAR.
Evans, C. & Shaver, S. (2001). Youth homelessness: Case Studies of the Reconnect Program, Final Report. University of New
South Wales, UK: Social Policy Research Centre. Retrieved from: http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/Report2_01_
Youth_Homelessness.pdf
FEANTSA. (2010). Ending homelessness: A handbook for policy makers. Europe: European Federation of National
Organisations Working with the Homeless. Retrieved from: http://www.epha.org/IMG/pdf/HANDBOOK_TO_END_
HOMELESSESS.pdf
Fernandes, A. (2007). Exploring racism’s impact on youth homelessness in America: Overview and research. Washington, DC:
National Alliance to End Homelessness.
Forchuk, C., Csiernik, R. & Jensen, E. (Eds). (2011). Homelessness, Housing and Mental Health: Finding Truths–Creating Change.
Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
105
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Forchuk-Gattis
REF
→ References
Forchuk, C., MacClure, S. K., Van Beers, M., Smith, C., Csiernik, R., Hoch, J. & Jensen, E. (2008). Developing and testing an
intervention to prevent homelessness among individuals discharged from psychiatric wards to shelters and ‘no fixed
address’. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 15, 569-575.
Forchuk, C., Richardson, J., Laverty, K., Bryant, M., Csiernik, R., Edwards, B., … Kelly, C. (2013). Service preferences of homeless
youth with mental Illness: Housing first, treatment first, or both together. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow
& A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 95-109. Toronto: Canadian
Homelessness Research Network Press.
Forchuk, C., Russel, G., Kingston-MacClure, S., Turner, K. & Dill, S. (2006). From psychiatric ward to the streets and shelters.
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 13, 301–308.
Foyer Federation website–http://www.foyer.net
Freeman, J. G., King, M. & Pickett, W. (2012). The health of Canada’s young people: a mental health focus. Ottawa, Ontario: Public
Health Agency of Canada. Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/hp-ps/dca-dea/publications/hbsc-mental-mentale/
index-eng.php
Gaetz, S. (2002). Street justice: The legal and justice issues of homeless youth in Toronto. Toronto: Justice for Children and Youth.
Gaetz, S. (2004a). Safe streets for whom? Street youth, social exclusion and criminal victimization. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 46(4), 423-455.
Gaetz, S. (2004b). Understanding research on homelessness in Toronto: A literature review. Toronto: York University & Wellesley
Central Health Foundation.
Gaetz, S. (2008). Why Are We Still Struggling with Homelessness in Canada? Seven Things We Can Do. Canadian Housing, 24, 27-31.
Gaetz, S. (2009). Whose safety counts? Street youth social exclusion and criminal victimization. In J. D. Hulchanski, P. Campsie, S.
Chau, S. Hwang & E. Paradis (Eds.), Finding home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada (Chapter 3.2).
Toronto: University of Toronto, Cities Centre.
Gaetz, S. (2010). The struggle to end homelessness in Canada: How we created the crisis and how we can end it. The Open Health
Services and Policy Journal, 3, 21-26.
Gaetz, Stephen, Donaldson, J., Richter, T. & Gulliver, T. (2013). The State of Homelessness in Canada – 2013. Canadian
Homelessness Research Network. Homeless Hub Paper series #2
Gaetz, S. & O’Grady, B. (2002). Making money: Exploring the economy of homeless workers. Work, Employment and Society, 16(3), 433-456.
Gaetz, S. & O’Grady, B. (2006). The missing link: Discharge planning, incarceration and homelessness.Toronto, ON:The John Howard Society of Ontario.
Gaetz, S. & O’Grady, B. (2013). Why don’t you just get a job? Homeless youth, social exclusion and employment training. In S.
Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy
and practice, 243-268. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Gaetz, S. & Scott, F. (2012). Live, learn, grow: Supporting transitions to adulthood for homeless youth–A framework for the foyer
in Canada. (Homeless Hub Research Report Series #10). Toronto, ON: The Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Gaetz,S., Scott, F. & Gulliver,T. (Eds.) (2013): Housing First in Canada: Supporting Communities to End Homelessness. Toronto:
Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press
Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B. & Buccieri, K. (2010). Surviving Crime and Violence: Street Youth and Victimization in Toronto. Toronto, ON:
Justice for Children and Youth & the Homeless Hub.
Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., Buccieri,, K., Karabanow, J. & Marsolais, A.(Eds.) (2013). Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for
policy and practice. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Gaetz, S., Tarasuk, V., Dachner, N. & Kirkpatrick, S. (2006). Managing homeless youth in Toronto: Mismanaging food access and
nutritional well-being. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 58, 43-61.
Gardner, T., Ochoa, J., Alspaugh, M. & Mathews, N. (2010). Centralized intake for helping people experiencing homelessness:
Overview, community profiles and resources. The Cloudburst Group, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Gattis, M. N. (2009). Psychosocial problems associated with homelessness in sexual minority youths. Journal of Human
Behaviour in the Social Environment, 19(8), 1066-1094.
106
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Gazzaniga-Homeless Hub
REF
→ References
Gazzaniga, M. (2008). Arts and cognition: Findings hint at relationships. In M. DeLong & T. Wichmann (Eds.), Learning, Arts and the
Brain, 7-11. Washington, DC: Dana Press.
Gilligan, R. (2002). Adversity, resilience and young people: The protective value of positive school and spare time experiences.
Children and Society, 14(1), 37-47.
Goering, P., Velhuizen, S., Watson, A., Adair, C., Kopp, B., Latimer, E. & Ly, A. (2012). At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report. Ottawa:
Mental Health Commission of Canada
Goldfinger, S. M., Schutt, R. K., Tolomiczenko, G. S. et al. (1999). Housing placement and subsequent days homeless among
formerly homeless adults with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 50, 674–679.
Goldstein, A. L., Amiri, T., Vilhena, N., Wekerle, C., Torton, T. & Tonmyr, L. (2012). Youth on the street and youth involved with child
welfare: Maltreatment, mental health and substance use. Child Maltreatment Section, Public Health Agency of Canada.
Retrieved from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/publications/nfnts-urb/pdf/nfnts-urb-eng.pdf
Government of Canada. (2013). National Homelessness Information System. Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
Retrieved from: http://hifis.hrsdc.gc.ca/index-eng.shtml
Gowan, T. (2002). The Nexus: Homelessness and incarceration in two American cities. Ethnography, 3(4), 500 534.
Grace, M, Coventry, L. & Gronda, H. (2009). Engaging young people experiencing homelessness in education, employment and
training: Research synthesis literature review and practice recommendations. Melbourne, Australia: Victoria University.
Hagan, J. & McCarthy, B. (1997). Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Hankivsky, O. (2008). Cost estimates of dropping out of high school in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Learning.
Retrieved from: http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/OtherReports/CostofdroppingoutHankivskyFinalReport.pdf
Harrison, L. (2001). The revolving prison door for drug involved offenders: Challenges and opportunities. Crime &
Delinquency, 47(3), 462 485.
Health Canada. (1996). The Street Lifestyles Project: Final Report. Ottawa, ON: Caputo, T., Weiler, R. anderson, J.
Health Canada. (2008). Vancouver’s INSITE service and other supervised injection sites: What has been learned from research?
Final report of the Expert Advisory Committee. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada.
Herman D., Mandiberg J. (2010). Critical time intervention: model description and implications for the significance of timing social
work interventions. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 502-508.
Herman, D., Conover, S., Gorroochurn, P., Hinterland, K., Hoepner, L. & Susser, E. (2011). Randomized trial of critical time
intervention to prevent homelessness in persons with severe mental illness following institutional discharge. Psychiatric
Services, 62(7), 713–719.
Hermer, J. & Mosher, J. (Eds.). (2002). Disorderly people: Law and the politics of exclusion in Ontario. Halifax, Nova Scotia:
Fernwood Publishing.
Herrenkohl, T., Sousa, C., Tajima, E., Herrenkohl, R. & Moylan, C. (2008). Intersection of child abuse and children’s exposure to
domestic violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 9(2), 84-99.
Hienze, H. J. (2013). Beyond a bed: Support for positive development for youth residing in emergency shelters. Children and
Youth Services Review, 35, 278–286.
Higgitt, N., Wigert, S., Ristock, J., Brown, M., Ballantyne, M., Caett, S., Coy, K., Quoquat, R. (2003). Voices from the Margins:
Experience of Street-Involved Youth in Winnipeg. Operation Go Home.
Hodges, S., Ferreira, K., Israel, N. & Mazza, J. (2006). Strategies of system of care implementation: Making change in complex
systems. Department of Child and Family Studies, Louis de la Part Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South
Florida. Retrieved from: http://www.oregon.gov/oha/amh/wraparound/research/strategies4soc-develop.pdf
Homeless Hub. (2012). Canadian definition of homelessness. Retrieved from: http://www.homelesshub.ca/CHRNhomelessdefinition/
107
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Homeless Hub-Kellen
REF
→ References
Homeless Hub. (2012). Harm reduction definition. Retrieved from: http://www.homelesshub.ca/about-homelessness/substanceuse-addiction/harm-reduction
Horton-Newell, A., Meyer, K. & Trupin, C. (Eds.). (2010). Runaway and homeless youth and the law: Model state statutes.
American Bar Association Commission on Homelessness and Poverty. Retrieved from: http://b.3cdn.net/naeh/9bea7
9bcc5f7d02098_9jm6bhh7r.pdf
Hughes, J. R., Clark, S. E., Wood, W., Cakmak, S., Cox, A., MacInnis, M. &Broom, B. (2010). Youth homelessness: The
relationships among mental health, hope and service satisfaction. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(4), 274-283.
Hulchanski J.D., Campisi, P, Chau, S., Hwang, S. (2009). Introduction Homelessness. What’s in a word? In: Hulchanski JD,
Campisi P, Chau, SBY, Hwang S, Paradis E, Eds. Finding home policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada.
Cities Centre Press, University of Toronto.
Hulchanski, J.D. (2006). What factors shape Canada’s housing policy? The intergovernmental role in Canada’s housing system.
In: Young, R. & Leuprecht C., (eds). Canada: The State of the Federation 2004 Municipal-Federal-Provincial Relations in
Canada. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press., 221-47.
Hurtubise, R., Babin, P-O. & Grimard, C. (2009). Shelters for the homeless: Learning from research. In J. D. Hulchanski, P. Campsie,
S. Chau, S. Hwang & E. Paradis (Eds.), Finding Home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada (Chapter 3.4).
Toronto, ON: Cities Centre, University of Toronto.
Hyatt, Shahera. (2013). More Than a Roof: How California Can End Youth Homelessness. Los Angeles: CA Homeless Youth Project
Hyman, S., Aubry, T. & Klodawsky, F. (2010). Resilient education outcomes: Participation in school by youth with histories of
homelessness. Youth and Society, 43(1), 253-273.
Insley, E. (2011a). Homelessness prevention: Can we afford not to? Reconnecting families to prevent youth homelessness. London,
UK: DePaul UK. Retrieved from http://www.depauluk.org/_uploads/documents/homessness-prevention-report-reconnect.pdf
Insley, E. (2011b). Staying safe: An evaluation of Nightstop Services. London: DePaul UK. Retrieved from: http://www.
depaulnightstopuk.org/_uploads/nightstopuk/documents/staying-safe-evaluation-final.pdf
Janus, M., Archambault, F. X., Brown, S. W. & Welsh, L. A. (1995). Physical abuse in Canadian runaway adolescents. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 19(4), 433-447.
Jones, A., Quilgars, D. & Wallace, A. (2001). Life skills training for homeless people: A review of the evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.
Josephson, G. & Wright, A. (2000). Ottawa GLBT wellness project: Literature review and survey instruments. Retrieved from the
Pink Triangle Services website: http://www.pinktriangle.org/wellness/main.html
Karabanow, J. (2002). Open for business: Exploring the life stages of two Canadian street youth shelters. Journal of Sociology
and Social Welfare, XXIX(4), 99–116.
Karabanow, J. (2004a). Changing faces: the story of two Canadian street youth shelters. International Journal of Social
Welfare, 13, 304–314.
Karabanow, J. (2004b). Being young and homeless: Understanding how youth enter and exit street life. New York: Peter Lang.
Karabanow, J. & Hughes, J. (2013). Building Community: Supportive housing for young mothers. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K.
Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 111-130.
Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Karabanow, J. and Naylor, T. (2013). Pathways Towards Stability: Young people’s transitions off of the streets. In S. Gaetz, B.
O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and
practice, 53-74. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Kasprow, W. J., Rosenheck, R. A. (2007). Outcomes of critical time intervention case management of homeless veterans after
psychiatric hospitalization. Psychiatric Services, 58, 929–935.
Kellen, A., Freedman, J., Novac, S., Lapointe, L., Maaranen, R., Wong, A. (2010). Homeless and Jailed: Jailed and Homeless.
Toronto: The John Howard Society of Toronto
108
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Kenelly-Mallett
REF
→ References
Kennelly, J. (2011). Policing Young People As Citizens-In-Waiting: Legitimacy, Spatiality and Governance. British Journal of
Criminology, 51(2), 336-354.
Kidd, S. A. (2004).The walls were closing in and we were trapped–A qualitative analysis of street youth suicide. Youth & Society, 36(1), 30-55.
Kidd, S. A. & Kral, M. J. (2002). Suicide and prostitution among street youth: a qualitative analysis. Adolescence, 37(146), 411-30.
Kidd, S.A. (2013). Mental Health and Youth Homelessness: A critical review. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow
& A. Marsolais (Eds.) Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 217-227. Toronto: Canadian
Homelessness Research Network Press.
Kirsch, B., Gewurtz, R., Bakewell, R., Singer, B., Badsha, M. & Giles, N. (2009). Critical characteristics of supported housing:
Findings from the literature, residents and service providers. Toronto: Wellesley Institute. Retrieved from http://www.
wellesleyinstitute.com/publication/critical-characteristics-of-supported-housing/
Kirst, M. & Erikson, P. (2013). Substance use and mental health problems among street-involved youth: The need for a harm
reduction approach. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in
Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 185-198. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Kroner, M. l. (2001). Developing housing options for independent living preparation. In K.A. Nollan & A. C. Downs (Eds.),
Preparing youth for long-term success. Proceedings from the Casey Family Program national independent living forum.
Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Press.
Kuhn, R. & Culhane, D. (1998). Applying cluster analysis to test a typology of homelessness by pattern of shelter utilization.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(2), 207-232.
Kushel, M., Hahn, J., Evans, J., Bangsberg, D. & Moss, A. (2005). Revolving doors: Imprisonment among the homeless and
marginally housed population. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1747, 1752.
Leebeek, M., Curtis, D., Parkin, S., Coffey, M. & Clay, N. (2005). Places to go, places to grow:Youth shelters in the 21st century. Parity, 18(4), 4-6.
Lemon Osterling, K. & Hines, A. M. (2006). Mentoring adolescent foster youth: Promoting resilience during developmental
transitions. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 242-253.
Leslie, M. B., Stein, J. A, Rotheram-Borus, M. J. (2002). Sex-specific predictors of suicidality among runaway youth. Journal of
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 31(1), 27-40.
Lightfoot, M., Stein, J., Tevendale, H. & Preston, K. (2011). Protective factors associated with fewer multiple problem behaviours
among homeless/runaway youth. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(6), 878-889.
Liljedahl, S., Rae, J., Aubry, T. & Klodawsky, F. (2013). Resilient Outcome: Academic Engagement by Youth with Histories of
Homelessness. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada:
Implications for policy and practice, 269-286. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Lindsey, E. W. & Ahmed, F. (1999). The North Carolina independent living program: A comparison of outcomes for participants and
non-participants. Child and Youth Services Review, 21(5), 389-412.
Loiselle, E. (2002). To define or not to define... definition of youth engagement. Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement.
Retrieved from: http://www.engagementcentre.ca/detail_e.php?recordid=21
Lovatt, R. & Whitehead, C. (2006). Launch pad for life: An assessment of the role of foyers in housing association provision.
London, UK: Housing Corporation.
MacKenzie, D. & Chamberlain, C. (1995). The national census of homeless school students. Youth Studies Australia, 14(1), 22-28.
Mackenzie, D. & Chamberlain, C. (2004). School students who are homeless: finding solutions. AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, 49.
Mackenzie, D. & Chamberlain, C. (2006). Youth homelessness in Australia, Counting the homelessness project. Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Maginn, A., Frew, R., O’Regan, S. & Kodz, J. (2000). Stepping stones: An evaluation of foyers and other schemes serving the
housing and labour market need of young people. London, UK: DETR.
Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., Keys, D. (2005). Young people, drug use and family conflict: Pathways into Homelessness. Journal of
Adolescence, 28, 185–199.
109
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Mallon-Morse
REF
→ References
Mallon, G. (1998). After care, then where? Outcomes of an independent living program. Child Welfare, 77(1), 61-79.
Marlatt, A. & Witkiewitz, K. (2010). Update on harm-reduction policy and intervention research. Annual Review of Clinical
Psychology, 6, 591-606.
McCay, E. (2009). Seeing the possibilities: The need for a mental health focus amongst street-involved youth: Recognizing and
supporting resilience. Toronto, ON: Wellesley Institute.
McCay, E. & Aiello, A. (2013). The Need for Early Mental Health Intervention to Strengthen Resilience in Street-involved Youth. In
Gaetz, S., O’Grady, B., Buccieri, K., Karabanow, J. & Marsolais, A. (eds) Youth Homelessness in Canada: Implications for
Policy and Practice. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
McEwen, B. & Sapolsky, R. (1995). Stress and cognitive function. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5(2), 205-216.
McMorris, B., Tyler, K., Whitbeck, L. & Hoyt, D. (2002). Familial and “on-the-street” risk factors associated with alcohol use among
homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(1), 34-43.
McNeely, C., Nonnemaker, J. & Blum, R. (2002). Promoting School Connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72(4), 138-146.
Mendes, P. & Moslehuddin, B. (2006). From dependence to interdependence: Towards better outcomes for youth leaving state
care. Child Abuse Review, 15, 110-126.
Metraux, S. & Culhane, D. (2004). Homeless shelter use and reincarceration following prison release. Criminology &
Public Policy, 3(2), 139 160.
Milaney, K. (2011a). Dimensions of promising practice for case managed supports in ending homelessness. Calgary: Calgary
Homeless Foundation.
Milaney, K. (2011b). The 6 dimensions of promising practice for case managed supports to end homelessness, Part 1:
Contextualizing case management for ending homelessness. Professional Case Management, 16(6), 281-287.
Milaney, K. (2012). The 6 dimensions of promising practice for case managed supports to end homelessness, Part 2: The 6
dimensions of quality. Professional Case Management, 17(1), 4-12.
Milburn, N. G., Rice, E., Rotheram-Borus, M. J., Mallett, S., Rosenthal, D., Batterham, P., … Duan, N. (2009). Adolescents exiting
homelessness over two years: The risk amplification and abatement model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 19, 762-785.
Millar, H. (2009). Rehousing Vancouver’s street-involved youth. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks Research Report.
Retrieved from: http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=2094&l=en
Millar, H. (2010). Re-housing street-involved youth in Metro Vancouver (MA Thesis). Burnaby, BC: Simon Fraser University.
Miller, B., Blau, G., Christopher, O. T. & Jordan, P. (2012). Sustaining and expanding systems of care to provide mental health
services for children, youth and families across America. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49, 566–579.
Minkoff, K. (2005). Comprehensive continuous integrated system of care (CCISC): Psychopharmacology practice guidelines for
individuals with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders (COD). Retrieved from: http://ziapartners.com/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/CCISC-psychopharm.pdf
Minnery, J. & Greenhalgh, E. (2007). Approaches to homelessness policy in Europe, the United States and Australia. Journal of
Social Issues, 63(3), 641-655.
Monsebratten, L. (2013, January 23). Panel proposes sweeping change to Ontario’s child welfare system. Toronto Star. Retrieved from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/01/23/panel_proposes_sweeping_change_to_ontarios_child_welfare_system.html
Montgomery, P., Donkoh, C. & Underhill, N. (2006). Independent living programs for young people leaving the care system: The
state of the evidence. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1435–1448.
Morgan,T. (2010). Room to grow: Meeting the needs of homeless youth. Cross Currents–The Journal of Addiction and Mental Health, 14(2), 18.
Morse, G. (1999). A review of case management for people who are homeless: Implications for practice, policy and research.
Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research.
110
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Moscovitch-Novac
REF
→ References
Moscovitch, A. (1997). Social assistance in the new Ontario. In Ralph, D., Regimbald, A. & St-Amand, N., (eds). Open for business.
Closed to people. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 80-92.
Munson, M. R., Scott, L. D., Smalling, S. E., HyunSoo, K. & Floersh, J. E. (2011). Former system youth with mental health needs:
Routes to adult mental health care, insight, emotions and mistrust. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2261-2266.
Murdie, R., Logan, J. & Preston, V. (2006). Immigrants and housing: A review of Canadian literature from 1990 to 2005. Ottawa: CMHC.
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2002). A plan not a dream–How to end homelessness in ten years. Washington: National
Alliance to End Homelessness. Retrieved from: http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/a-plan-not-a-dream-how-toend-homelessness-in-ten-years
National Alliance to End Homelessness. (2012). An emerging framework for ending unaccompanied youth homelessness.
Washington: National Alliance to End Homelessness. Retrieved from: http://www.endhomelessness.org/library/entry/anemerging-framework-for-ending-unaccompanied-youth-homelessness
National Case Management Network of Canada. (2009). Canadian standards of practice for case management. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncmn.ca/resources/documents/english%20standards%20for%20web.pdf
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (2006). A dream denied: The criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities.
Washington, DC: The National Coalition for the Homeless and The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
Retrieved from: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/report.pdf
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (2009). Homes not handcuffs: The criminalization of homelessness in U.S.
cities. Washington, DC: The National Coalition for the Homeless and The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty.
Retrieved from: http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/CrimzReport_2009.pdf
National Youth Commission. (2008). Australia’s homeless youth: A report of the National Youth Commission into youth
homelessness. Brunswick, Australia: National Youth Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.theoasismovie.com.au/pdfs/
Homeless_report.pdf
Neale, J. (1997). Hostels: A useful policy and practice response? In R. Burrows, N. Pleace & D. Quilgars (Eds.), Homelessness and
Social Policy (pp. 203 215). London: Routledge.
Nelson, G., Lord, J., Ochocka, J. (2001). Shifting the paradigm in community mental health: Towards empowerment and
community. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Nesselbuch, L. (1998). Transitional housing: A bridge to stability and self-sufficiency. Best practices in program design and
delivery. San Francisco, CA: HomeBase–The Center for Common Concerns.
Niagara Resource Service for Youth: Research Association for Teens. (2012). Youth Reconnect Program profile: Making A
Difference–One Step At A Time. St. Catharines, Ontario. Author.
Nichols, N. (2008). Gimme shelter! Investigating the social service interface from the standpoint of youth. Journal of Youth
Studies, 11(6), 685-699.
Nichols, N. (2013). Nobody “Signs out of care”: Exploring institutional links between child protection services and homelessness.
In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for
policy and practice, 75-93. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Nichols, N. (Accepted). All my life I’ve slipped through the cracks: The social coordination of “Youthwork”. Toronto, ON: University
of Toronto Press.
Nistala, H. & Dane, K. (2000). Staying safe: Preventing youth homelessness through early intervention programmes. London: Safe
in the City.
Noble, A. & Oseni, L. (2013). “It’s Everybody’s Business”: Raising the Roof’s Private Sector Engagement Project. In S. Gaetz, B.
O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and
practice, 287-309. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Novac, S., Brown, J. & Bourbonnais, C. (2004a). Transitional housing: Objectives, indicators of success and outcomes. CMHC
Research Highlights (Socio-economic Series 04-017).
111
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Novac-Parliament of the United Kingdom
REF
→ References
Novac, S., Hermer, J., Paradis, E. & Kellen, A., (2006). Justice and injustice: Homelessness, crime, victimization and the criminal
justice system. Toronto, ON: Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
Novac, S., Hermer, J., Paradis, E. & Kellen, A. (2007). A revolving door? Homeless people and the justice system in Toronto
(Research Bulletin #36). Toronto, ON: Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
Novac, S., Hermer, J., Paradis, E. & Kellen, A. (2009). More sinned against than sinning? Homeless people as victims of crime
and harassment. In J. D. Hulchanski, P. Campsie, S. Chau, S. Hwang & E. Paradis (Eds.), Finding Home: Policy options for
addressing homelessness in Canada (Chapter 7.2). Toronto, ON: Cities Centre, University of Toronto.
O’Grady, B. & Gaetz, S. (2004). Homelessness, gender and subsistence:The case ofToronto street youth. Journal ofYouth Studies, 7(4), 397-416.
O’Grady, B. & Gaetz, S. (2009). Street survival: A gendered analysis of youth homelessness in Toronto. In J. D. Hulchanski, P.
Campsie, S. Chau, S. Hwang & E. Paradis (Eds.), Finding Home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada
(Chapter 3.4). Toronto, ON: Cities Centre, University of Toronto.
O’Grady, B., Gaetz, S. & Buccieri, K. (2011). Can I see your ID? The policing of homeless youth in Toronto. Homeless Hub Research
Report Series #5. Toronto, ON: Homeless Hub.
O’Grady, Bill, Gaetz, Stephen & Buccieri, Kristy (2013). Policing Street Youth in Toronto. In Gaetz, Stephen, O’Grady, Bill, Buccieri,
Kristy, Karabanow, Jeff & Marsolais, Allyson (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice.
Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
O’Rourke, D. (2012). #GenerationFlux: Understanding the seismic shifts that are shaking Canada’s youth. Prepared for Vital Signs
Community Foundations of Canada.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005). Sustainable communities: Settled homes; changing lives–A strategy for tackling
homelessness. London, UK: Government of the United Kingdom.
Oliver, K., Collin, P., Burns, J., Nicholsa, J. (2006). Building resilience in young people through meaningful participation. Australian
e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental health, 5(1), 34-40.
Ontario Public Health Association. (2009). Youth engagement project–A research report and recommendations for OPHA to
support public health staff to enhance protective factors, increase resiliency and reduce illicit drug use with students in
grades 6-8 in Ontario. Toronto, ON: Author.
Ontario Public Health Association. (2011). Youth engagement toolkit–Working with Middle School students to enhance protective
factors and resiliency: A resource for health professionals working with young people. Toronto, ON: Author. Retrieved
from: http://www.youthengagement.ca/sites/default/files/OPHAYouthEngagementToolkit-April2011.pdf
Osterling, K. L. & Hines, A. M. (2006). Mentoring adolescent foster youth: Promoting resilience during developmental transitions.
Child and Family Social Work, 11(3), 242-253.
Parkinson, S. & Nelson, G. (2003). Consumer/survivor stories of empowerment and recovery in the context of supported housing.
International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation, 7, 103-118.
Parkinson, S., Nelson,G. & Horgan, S. (1999). From housing to homes: A review of the literature on housing approaches for
psychiatric consumer/survivors. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 18(1), 145-164.
Parliament of the United Kingdom. (1996). Housing Act. London, UK: Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from: http://
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/52/contents
Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2000). Children (Leaving Care) Act. London, UK: Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved
from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/35/contents
Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2002a). Homelessness Act. London, UK: Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/7/contents
Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2002b). No one left out: Communities ending rough sleeping. London, UK: Government of the
United Kingdom, Department for Communities and Local Government.
Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2002c). The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002. London,
UK: Government of the United Kingdom. Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/2051/contents/made
112
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Parliament of the United Kingdom-Raising the Roof
REF
→ References
Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2004). Children’s Act. Retrieved from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/contents
Parnaby, P. (2003). Disaster through Dirty Windshields Law, Order andToronto’s Squeegee Kids. The Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(3), 281-307.
Pawson, H. (2007). Local authority homelessness prevention in England: Empowering consumers or denying rights? Housing
Studies, 22(6), 867–883.
Pawson, H., Davidson, E. & Netto, G. (2007). Evaluation of homelessness prevention activities in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
Pawson, H., Netto, G. & Jones, C. (2006). Homelessness prevention: A guide to good practice. London, UK: Government of the
United Kingdom, Department for Communities and Local Government.
Pereira, N. (2007). Ready... Set... Engage! Building Effective Youth/Adult Partnerships for a Stronger Child and Youth Mental
Health System. Toronto: Children’s Mental Health Ontario & Ottawa: The Provincial Centre of Excellence for Child and
Youth Mental Health at CHEO.
Petersilia J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. London: Oxford University Press.
Petersilia, J. (2001a). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 360 375.
Petersilia, J. (2001b). When prisoners return to communities. Federal Probation, 65, 3 8.
Pleace, N., Fitzpatrick, S., Johnsen, S., Quilgars, D. & Sanderson, D. (2008). Statutory homelessness in England: The
experiences of families and 16–17 year olds. London, UK: Government of the United Kingdom, Department for
Communities and Local Government.
Pomeroy, S. (2007). Where’s the money gone? An analysis of declining government housing expenditures. Ottawa: Canadian
Housing and Renewal Association, 1-23.
Posner, M., Rothbar, M., Sheese, B. & Kieras, J. (2008). How arts training influences cognition. In Carolyn A. & Barbara R. (Eds.),
Learning, Arts and the Brain, 1-10. Washington, DC: Dana Press.
Preston, V., Murdie, R., D’Addario, S., Sibanda, P., Murnaghan, A. M., Logan, J. & Ahn, M. H. (2011). Precarious housing and hidden
homelessness among refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in the Toronto Metropolitan Area. Toronto, ON: CERIS–The
Ontario Metropolis Centre.
Public Health Agency of Canada. (2006). Street youth in Canada: Findings from enhanced surveillance of Canadian street youth,
1999-2003. Ottawa, ON: Author.
Public Interest. (2009). Changing patterns for street involved youth. Toronto, ON: Yonge Street Mission.
Quilgars, D. (2000). Low intensity support services: A systematic review of effectiveness. York, UK: Centre for Housing Policy,
University of York.
Quilgars, D. (2001). Dispersed foyers: A new approach? An evaluation of the Shortlife Plus Project. York, UK: Centre for Housing
Policy, University of York.
Quilgars, D. & Anderson, I. (1995). Foyers for young people. United Kingdom: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Quilgars, D., Fitzpatrick, S. & Pleace, N. (2011). Ending youth homelessness: Possibilities, challenges and practical solutions. York, UK:
Centre for Housing Policy, University of York & School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University.
Quilgars, D., Johnsen, S. & Pleace, N. (2008). Youth homelessness in the UK: A decade of progress? United Kingdom: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
Quilgars, D., Jones, A., Pleace, N. & Sanderson, D. (2004). The safe moves initiative: An evaluation. York, UK: Centre for Housing
Policy, University of York.
RAFT. (2012). Youth Reconnect Program Profile “Making a Difference–One Step at aTime”.St. Catharines, ON: Niagara Resource Service forYouth.
Raising the Roof. (2009). Youth Homelessness in Canada: The Road to Solutions.
113
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Reid-Smith
REF
→ References
Reid, C. (2007). The transition from state care to adulthood: International examples of best practices. New Directions for Youth
Development, 2007(113), 33-49.
Rew, L., Taylor-Seehafer, M., Thomas, N. & Yockey, R. (2001). Correlates of resilience in homeless adolescents. Journal of Nursing
Scholarship, 33, 33-40.
Rhodes, T. & Hedrich, D. (Eds.). (2010). EMCDDA monographs harm reduction: Evidence, impacts and challenges. Lisbon, Portugal:
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA). Retrieved from: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/
publications/monographs/harm-reduction
Rosengard, A., Laing, I. & Hunter, S. (2007). A literature review of multiple and complex needs. Scotland: Scottish Executive Social
Research. Retrieved from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/01/18133419/0
Roy, E., Boudreau, J. F., Boivin, J. F. (2009). Hepatitis C virus incidence among young street-involved IDUs in relation to injection
experience. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 102(1-3), 158-61.
Roy, S., Rhéaume, J., Rozier, M. & Hétu, P. (2000). L’hébergement des jeunes mineurs en difficulté: Une solution? In D. Laberge (Ed.),
L’errance urbaine (pp. 405-416). Sainte-Foy, QC: Éditions MultiMondes.
Ryan, P. & Beauchamp, T. (2003). Report of the reconnect longitudinal study: Building community capacity for early intervention.
Australia: RPR Consulting. Retrieved from: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/05_2012/longitudinalstudy_
bccea_april2003.pdf
Saewyc, E., Drozda, C., Rivers, R., MacKay, L. & Peled, M. (2013). Which comes first: Sexual exploitation or other risk exposures
among street-involved youth? In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in
Canada: Implications for policy and practice,147-160. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Safe in the City. (2002). Safe in the city: A practical approach to preventing youth homelessness. London: Safe in the City.
Sandalack, B., Walsh, C. & Graham, J. (2008). Homeless shelter design: Considerations for shaping shelters and the public realm.
Calgary, AB: Brush Education.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2008a). Considering resilience in children and youth: Fostering positive adaptation and competence in
schools, families and communities. Discussion paper for The Learning Partnership. Winnipeg, MB: The National Dialogue on
Resilience in Youth.
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2008b). Evaluating resiliency initiatives for children and youth: Current issues, lingering questions and future
directions. Working Paper, The Learning Partnerships’ Resiliency in Canadian Children Project.
Segaert, A. (2012). The National Shelter Study: Emergency shelter Use in Canada 2005-2009. Ottawa: Homelessness Partnering
Secretariat, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
Serge, L., Eberle, M., Goldberg, M., Sullivan, S. & Dudding, P. (2002). Pilot study: The child welfare system and homelessness among
Canadian youth. National Homelessness Initiative.
Shern, D. L., Felton, C. J., Hough, R. L. et al. (1997). Housing outcomes for homeless adults with mental illness: results from the
second-round McKinney program. Psychiatric Services, 48(2), 239–241.
Shinn, M., Baumohl, J. & Hopper, K. (2001).The prevention of homelessness revisited. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 1(1), 95–127.
Schutt, R.K., Hough, R.L., Goldfinger, S.M. et al. (2009). Lessening homelessness among persons with mental illness: A comparison
of five randomized treatment trials. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 2, 100-105.
Sider, D. (2005). A sociological analysis of root causes of Aboriginal homelessness in Sioux Lookout, Ontario. The Canadian Race
Relations Foundation.
Smith, J. & Deutschman, Y. (2010). Homeless youth early intervention in the UK [Video]. London: Cities Institute, London
Metropolitan University.
Smith, J. & Duckett, N. (2010a). Toolkit: Early intervention programmes to prevent youth homelessness–some examples from
the UK. CSEYHP (Combating Social Exclusion Among Young Homeless Populations) funded by the European Union
Framework 7 Programme.
114
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Smith-Sylvestre
REF
→ References
Smith, J., Browne, O., Newton, V. & O’Sullivan, A. (2006). What happened next? A report on ex-residents of foyers. London, UK:
Centre for Housing and Community Research, Cities Institute, London Metropolitan University.
Smokowski, P. R., Reynolds, A. J. & Bezruckzo, N. (1999). Resilience and Protective Factors in Adolescence: An Autobiographical
Perspective From Disadvantaged Youth. Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 425–448,
Social Exclusion Unit. (2005). Transitions:Young adults with complex needs. London: Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Sokolowski, K., Boyce, W. T. & McEwan, B. (2013). Scarred for life? The biology of childhood hardship. New Scientist, 2901. Retrieved
from: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729016.300-scarred-for-life-the-biology-of-childhood-hardship.html
Sommers, J., LaPrairie, C., Berti, M., Laviolette, T., Felix, V. & Millar, S. (2005). Policing homelessness: The report on the research
project on the regulation of public space and the criminalization of homelessness in Vancouver. Vancouver, BC: Strathcona
Research Group/PHS Community Services Society.
Sprague, J. (1991). More than housing: Lifeboats for women and children. London, UK: Architectural Press.
Springer, J., Lum, J. & Roswell. T. (2013). Policy challenges to homelessness among Caribbean youth in Toronto. In S. Gaetz, B.
O’Grady, K. Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice,
445-467. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Springer, J., Roswell, T., Lum, J. (2006). Pathways to Homelessness among Caribbean Youth Aged 15-25 in Toronto, CERIS working
paper #44. Toronto, On: Wellesley Institute; Ryerson Caribbean Research Centre.
Statistics Canada. (2010). Trends in dropout rates and the labour market outcomes of young dropouts. Retrieved from: http://www.
statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-004-x/2010004/article/11339-eng.htm#h
Statistics Canada. (2012a). Census in Brief: Living arrangements of young adults aged 20-29. Families, households and marital
status, 2011 Census of Population.
Statistics Canada. (2012b). Indicators of well-being in Canada: Learning–school drop-outs. Retrieved from: http://www4.hrsdc.
gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=32
Statistics Canada. (2012c). Description for Chart 3. Unemployment rate, high school graduates and dropouts aged 20 to 24, 1990/1991
to 2009/2010. Statistics Canada Labour Force Survey (LFS), Record number 3701. Retrieved from: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/
pub/81-004-x/2010004/chrt-graph/desc/desc-3-eng.htm
Steinberg, L. (2007). Adolescence (8th Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steinberg, L. & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83-110.
Streich, L. & Greene, J. (1998). Daring to dream: The work of rural foyers. London: Rural Development Commission.
Suarez, L., Belcher, H., Briggs, E. C. & Titus, J.C. (2012). Supporting the need for an integrated system of care for youth with cooccurring traumatic stress and substance abuse problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 49(3-4), 430–440.
Sum, A., Ishwar, K., McLaughlin, J. (2009). The consequences of dropping out of high school. Center for Labor Market Studies
Publications. Retrieved from: http://www.americaspromise.org/~/media/Files/Resources/Consequences_of_Dropping_
Out_of_High_School.ashx
Susser, E., Valencia, E., Conover, S. et al. (1997). Preventing recurrent homelessness among mentally ill men: A ‘critical time’
intervention after discharge from shelter. American Journal of Public Health, 87, 256–262.
Sylvestre, M. E. (2010a). Disorder and public spaces in Montreal: Repression (and resistance) through law, politics and police
discretion. Urban Geography, 31(6), 803-824.
Sylvestre, M. E. (2010b). Policing the homeless in Montreal: Is this really what the population wants? Policing and Society, 20(4), 432-458.
Sylvestre, M. E. (2011). Affidavit of Marie-Eve Sylvestre. Ontario Superior Court of Justice. Retrieved from: http://www.acto.ca/assets/
files/cases/Afd.%20of%20M%20E%20SYLVESTRE,%20Associate%20professor%20of%20Law%20&%20Director%20of%20
the%20Ph.d%20Program%20in%20Law,%20University%20of%20Ottawa%20-%20FINAL.pdf
115
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━ Tanner-United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
REF
→ References
Tanner, J. (2009). Teenage troubles:Youth and deviance in Canada (3rd Edition). Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Tanner, J. & Wortley, S. (2002). The Toronto youth crime and victimization survey: Overview report. Toronto, ON: Toronto Police
Services.
Tarasuk, V., Dachner, N.,Poland, B., Gaetz; S. (2009a). An ethnographic study of meal programs for homeless and under-housed
individuals in Toronto. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 20(3), 846-53.
Tarasuk, V., Dachner, N.,Poland, B., Gaetz; S. (2009b). Food deprivation is integral to the ‘hand to mouth’ existence of homeless
youth in Toronto. Public Health Nutrition, Jan 15, 1-6.
Tarasuk, V. & Dachner, N. (2013). Homeless Youth, Nutritional Vulnerability and Community Food Assistance Programs. In Gaetz,
S., O’Grady, B., Buccieri, K., Karabanow, J. & Marsolais, A. (eds) Youth Homelessness in Canada: Implications for Policy
and Practice. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Thompson, S. (2005). Risk/protective factors associated with substance use among runaway/homeless youth utilizing emergency
shelter services nationwide. Substance Abuse, 25(3), 13-26.
Thrane, L. E., Hoyt, D. R., Whitbeck, L. B. & Yoder, K. A. (2006). Impact of family abuse on running away, deviance and street
victimization among homeless rural and urban youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 1117-1128.
Toro, P., Lesperance, T. & Braciszewski, J. (2011). The heterogeneity of homeless youth in America: Examining typologies.
Homeless Research Institute, National Alliance to End Homelessness. Retrieved from: http://www.endhomelessness.org/
library/entry/the-heterogeneity-of-homeless-youth-in-america-examining-typologies
Transitions for Youth. (2007). More than a roof: Best practices for transitional housing models for homeless youth in Halton.
Burlington, ON: Author.
Travis, J. & Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 291 313.
Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., Nakae, M. (2004). Housing First, consumer choice and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a
dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 651-656.
Tyler, K. & Bersani, B. (2008). A longitudinal study of early adolescent precursors to running away. Journal of Early
Adolescences, 28(2), 230-251.
Tyler, K., Hoyt, D. & Whitbeck, L. (2000). The effects of early sexual abuse on later sexual victimization among female homeless
and runaway adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(3), 235-250.
Ungar, M. (2004). A constructionist discourse on resilience: Multiple contexts, multiple realities among at-risk children and youth.
Youth & Society, 35(3), 341-365.
Ungar, M., Liebenberg, L., Boothroyd, R., Thiessen, V., Kwong, W. M., Lee, T. Y., … Makhnach, A. (2008). The study of
youth resilience across cultures: Lessons from a pilot study of measurement development. Research in Human
Development, 5(3), 2008.
United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Promising strategies to end youth homelessness. Washington:
Administration for Children And Families, USDHHS.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2010). Federal homelessness workgroups listening session background
materials from February 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/ExpertsBriefs_
All5Workgroups.pdf
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2010a). Federal strategic plan to prevent and end homelessness: What we
learned. Washington: Author.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2010b). Opening doors: Federal strategic plan to prevent and end
homelessness. Washington: Author.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2010c). Supplemental document to the Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and
End Homelessness: Background Paper–Youth Homelessness (FSP Supplemental Document #7). Washington: Author.
116
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
References ━United States Interagency Council on Homelessness-Zizys
REF
→ References
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. (2013). Framework to End Youth Homelessness (FSP Supplemental Document
#7). Washington: Author.
Valdez, M., Gibbard, M., Thompkins, A., Woley, M. (2013). Comprehensive Plan to Prevent and End Youth and Young Adult
Homelessness in King County by 2020: Homeless Youth and Young Adult Initiative. Committee to End Homelessness, King
County (Seattle) Washington, USA
Van den Bree, M. B., Shelton, K., Bonner, A., Moss, S., Thomas, H., Taylor, P. J. (2009). A longitudinal population-based study of factors
in adolescence predicting homelessness in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(6), 571-578.
Visher, C. A. & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathway. Annual Review of
Sociology, 29, 89 113.
Waegemakers Schiff, J. & Rook, J. (2012). Housing First–Where is the Evidence? Toronto: Homeless Hub.
Walsh, C. A., Graham, J. R. & Shier, M. (2009). Towards a common goal for shelter service. Social Development Issues, 31(2), 57-69.
Whitbeck, L. & Hoyt, D. (1999). Nowhere to grow: Homeless and runaway adolescents and their families. Hawthorne, N.Y. : Aldine De
Gruyter
Whitbeck, L., Hoyt, D. & Ackley, K. (1997). Abusive family backgrounds and later victimization among runaway and homeless
adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 7(4), 375-392.
Winland, D. (2013). Reconnecting with family and community: Pathways out of youth homelessness. In S. Gaetz, B. O’Grady, K.
Buccieri, J. Karabanow & A. Marsolais (Eds.), Youth homelessness in Canada: Implications for policy and practice, 15-38.
Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Winland, D., Gaetz, S. & Patton, T. (2011). Family matters: Homeless youth and Eva’s Initiatives “Family Reconnect” Program. Homeless
Hub Research Report Series #3. Toronto, ON: Homeless Hub.
Wirth, K. & Davies, K. (2013). The Element’s Project–Youth Homeless Prevention Pilot: Final Report June 2011-December 2012. The
Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary.
Yanos, P., Barrow, S. & Tsemberis, S. (2004). Community Integration in the Early Phase of Housing Among Homeless Persons
Diagnosed with Severe Mental Illness: Successes and Challenges. Community Mental Health Journal, 40(2), 133-150.
Yonge Street Mission. (2009). Changing patterns of street involved youth. Toronto, ON.
Youth Leaving Care Working Group. (2013). Blueprint for fundamental change to Ontario’s Child Welfare System: Final Report of the
Youth Leaving Care Working Group. Toronto, ON: Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.
Youth North East. (2012). Move On Event. Retrieved from: http://youthhomelessnortheast.org.uk/move-on-event-3rd-april-2012/
Zizys, T., Kosny, M., Jarosz, J. & Quintal, M. (2003). Eva’s Phoenix Pathways to Housing and Jobs. An Evaluation. Toronto, ON:
Eva’s Initiatives.
117
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendices
A.A
1.3
The Response to Youth Homelessness
in the United Kingdom
There have been significant developments in strategic responses to youth
homelessness in the UK, including the enactment of several pieces of
legislation that provide the framework for the response at the national
and local authority levels . These have coincided with the ‘devolution’
of government responsibility to the states of Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland (this devolved model of federalism is instructive for how
youth strategies might be developed in Canada). In each case, national
governments (and local authorities) have developed strategies to address
homelessness and all have a focus on youth homelessness.
(Quilgars et al., 2008)
The National Youth Homelessness Scheme was first announced in 2006 as a national strategy to ‘tackle
and prevent homelessness’. The overarching goal was to have national governments and local authorities
work with individual young people and their families to prevent homelessness and help youth transition
to adulthood in a sustainable, safe way. Four key components of their framework include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
118
Strategic Planning and Coordination
Prevention
Accommodation
Wider Needs (Supports)
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix A ━ The Response toYouth Homelessness in the United Kingdom
A.A
Appendix A—1
1. Strategic Planning and Coordination
Successful implementation of the strategy was contingent upon the development
of partnerships, between policy makers, a wide network of disciplines, services
and funding organizations and different sectors. Key here was the role of the notfor-profit sector (referred to in UK literature as the voluntary sector); this was not
simply a government initiative.
Also central was the notion of “joint working”, which in the UK means two things:
first, that agencies in the not-for-profit sector must work together in collaboration
and second, that in government strategic collaboration and shared responsibility
between different departments and units is absolutely necessary to deal with
complex issues. Working in collaboration with different stakeholders, government’s
role is to coordinate, provide some level of funding, set targets and monitor
progress.
In developing a strategic approach, the NYHS identified key principles and learnings
(taken from the NYHS website) that could help to inform the development of
a Canadian strategy:
- Most strategies require a change in priorities, in (joint) working methods,
in organizational cultures and inter-agency perceptions. Adopting positive
management practices to change corporate and individual behaviours across all
participating agencies has been important.
- Beneficial changes can be introduced without a formal strategic approach.
However, most authorities agree that, for the reasons given above, the
investment in a formal strategy has been worthwhile.
- Leadership and active participation of key influencers in the local government
structure is essential to achieving objectives.
- Target milestones and outcomes for the strategy, linked to mainstream local
authority strategic planning frameworks are essential to motivate influential
leaders.
- Identified facilitators and project managers, with capacity to resolve problems
and document partnership arrangements, act as an invaluable focus for effort
and the process of change.
- Partnership work requires investment. Benefits in terms of outcomes for young
people and in terms of value for money, must be the focus of the strategy and
constant touchstone.
119
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix A ━ The Response toYouth Homelessness in the United Kingdom
A.A
Appendix A—2
2. Prevention
As mentioned above, central to the UK response is the focus on prevention
(Pawson, 2007; Pawson et al, 2006; 2007) and there is much we can learn from
this orientation. The prevention focus is particularly relevant in the response to
youth homelessness, with pilot schemes developed in England near the turn of the
century (Nistala & Dane, 2000; Safe in the City, 2002; Quilgars et al., 2004).
The approach to preventing youth homelessness adopted in the UK begins with
recognition that remaining at home may not be an option for young people
experiencing abuse. However, for most youth, they generally will have improved
life chances the longer they stay with their family and the more ‘planned’ their
transition to living independently is. When that move takes place will depend on a
number of factors. For some, it may be best that the young person moves out at 16.
Again, this should ideally occur in a safe and planned way.
The key point of a preventive approach is that young people and their families
“need to be able make informed decisions about whether to live apart and, if they
need it, to have access to appropriate resources and skilled support if homelessness
is to be prevented” (NYHS website).
120
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix A ━ The Response toYouth Homelessness in the United Kingdom
A.A
→ (2.) Prevention
Again, reflecting the ‘partnership’ approach of the UK strategy, local authorities
are expected to develop interventions to be delivered in collaboration with key
partners including Children's Services, the youth service, the not-for-profit sector and
importantly, schools. The collaborative, cross sectoral approach is seen as necessary as
a number of agencies may or should have a role in supporting young people and their
families to prevent homelessness. Key elements of a preventive strategy include:
A Strengthening services and supports aimed at supporting children and families with
complex needs who are at risk of homelessness. This includes government supports
(child welfare services) as well as services provided by the not-for-profit sector.
B Information and advice–getting timely information and supports to young people
and their families. This includes services to build resilience, raise young people’s
awareness of rights, independent information and advice services and direction
about where to get help.
C Family mediation–Based on a body of research that shows family breakdown is
a huge factor in youth homelessness. The roots of breakdown can be complex
and may be related to unaddressed problems experienced by young people
(school, mental health, addictions, etc.,), problems with family members (abuse,
domestic violence, addictions, mental health) and structural problems (poverty,
overcrowding, etc.). Family mediation (which may include home visits) focuses
on relationships, communication, parenting skills etc., with the goal of seeking
both short term and long term solutions, including: “improved relationships and
communication, fewer arguments, increased self esteem and a greater willingness
to accept responsibility for actions and behaviours” (NYHS website).
D Working in Schools–As is the case in Australia, much of the preventive work occurs
is schools. This is an important consideration, because this is where young people
spend much of their time and this is where one can access young people under the
age of 16. It is also important that schools exist in every community and in many
cases are important community hubs with high levels of parental engagement.
Work in schools is often (usually) delivered by not-for-profit agencies, who are often
the same ones who deliver family mediation services (this link is important). Work in
schools can include education on youth homelessness, work to build self-sufficiency
and resilience, conflict resolution training etc. It can also include support for parents.
The idea behind: “if we can make a difference to young people's attitudes and
circumstances at a young age, there is a greater chance of them not becoming
homeless” (NYHS website).
E Assessment system–When young people are identified (or self-identify) as being
at risk for homelessness, there must be a process in place to assess the situation
and determine the needs. The assessment model “is a holistic one, which looks
at causes of /triggers for homelessness in a preventative framework“ (NYHS
website). The outcome may be that the young person in question gets access
to family mediation. If it is determined that there is no immediate reconciliation
possible, then the local government has a statutory responsibility to ensure they
have priority need for temporary accommodation, according to the Homelessness
Act (2002). Assessment services may be developed and delivered by local
government, but there is recognition that partnerships with not-for-profit services
may be the best route, as they may have established the expertise and best track
record for working with young people and have legitimacy. Organizations that
have experience and credibility in their work with young people who are homeless
and which have strong knowledge and relationships with other local providers, are
recommended.
121
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix A ━ The Response toYouth Homelessness in the United Kingdom
A.A
Appendix A—3
3. Accommodation
When young people can no longer remain at home, the NYHS is responsible for
helping young people find and maintain independent accommodation. There are
four streams to the accommodation strategy and they begin with emergency
services and assessment:
Emergency Services and Assessment: Here is an interesting thing about the
UK approach to youth homelessness. While emergency services are part of
the response, they really are structured and conceived of as a temporary
accommodation where young people go through a rigorous assessment. As
a ‘triage’ service, the often intensive assessment they undergo is designed
to determine if young people can go back home, or move into some form of
independent living. The holistic assessment is also designed to identify other
services and supports that may be necessary.
Outreach, though not technically a form of accommodation, is definitely tied
to it. As mentioned previously, as part of the UK “rough sleeping’ strategy, a
concerted effort is undertaken to locate and identify young people who are
sleeping outdoors or in squats and to link them with the supports they need.
Transitional housing: For young people who are homeless, it is often
recognized that they lack skills and experiences to live independently right
away. In the UK, they have developed a range of transitional housing models to
provide young people with supports they need in order to gain skills allowing
them to eventually live independently. One model, the Supported Lodging
Scheme, provides accommodation to young people in a family home, where
they have their own bedroom but share a kitchen, bathroom and other facilities.
This kind of accommodation is suitable for young people who are ready to live
independently but require support. The model is not suitable for young people
“who have few boundaries to their behaviour or who want the freedom and
anonymity of other settings” (NYHS website). Depending on the program,
stays can be short (days or weeks) to up to two years. Another approach to
transitional housing is the Foyer housing model, which has a long history in
the UK. This type of housing support combines longer term housing (up to two
years) with more intensive life skills training support. This model has become
popular world wide.
Permanent housing: In the language of the UK, this is referred to as “Moveon” housing option, meaning that young people are ready and able to live
independently and move into either social housing or private sector housing.
Move-on options for young people are schemes that provide support for people
to get there. As in Canada, many emergency shelter beds are filled with young
people who would fit this status, but depending on the availability of affordable
housing in a given market, may or may not be able to do this with ease. The
role of the sector is to help young people get into housing (and may involve
different levels of supports after the fact). This may mean a proactive role in
establishing relations with landlords or public housing authorities to ensure
a certain number of units are available. There are a number of examples of
recruiting and supporting private landlords.
122
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix A ━ The Response toYouth Homelessness in the United Kingdom
A.A
Appendix A—4
4. Wider Needs (Supports)
The National Youth Homelessness Scheme is premised on the notion that while
all young people need support to make the successful transition to adulthood,
young people who are homeless may face additional and complex challenges. Their
upbringing and experiences may have reduced their resilience and undermined their
mental, physical and emotional resources that would help them make the transition
to adulthood. Ironically, given the extent of the challenges they face, they are also
expected to make the transition to adulthood more quickly than housed youth.
Again, the feature that distinguishes a response to youth homelessness from a
more generalized response to homelessness is the attention that must be paid to the
adolescent development strand. The most effective plans in the UK identify this and
build this into a range of service options. The key areas of focus include:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Health and well-being
Learning and work
Young people from BME communities (BME refers to Black and Minority communities)
Anti-social behaviour
Offenders and offending
Young people with multiple needs
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) young people
Mentoring and befriending
Further Reading:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
123
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/health/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/learningwork/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/bme/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/antisocialbehaviour/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/offenders/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/multipleneeds/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/lgbtmodule/
http://www.communities.gov.uk/youthhomelessness/widerneeds/mentoringandbefriending/
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix B
A.B
1.3
Roadmap for Youth Homelessness
(Australia, 2008)
The report Australia's Homeless Youth: A Report of the National Youth Commission
into Youth Homelessness (National Youth Commission (2008) provides a “Roadmap
for Youth Homelessness” and highlights ten strategic action areas, as follows:
A Develop and implement a National Framework and National Homelessness
Action Plan
The national framework would include:
-
A national aspirational horizon–the goal of eliminating youth homelessness
by 2030;
Appropriate structures and processes designed to work across election
cycles in a bipartisan way;
Specific targets over the short, medium and long-term;
Strategies that set out realistically how targets will be reached;
A youth-centred focus for service provision and programs and
Review and public monitoring so that progress can be recognized and
problems identified against the needs of homeless young people.
B Affordable housing for young people
In response to decades of policy neglect and underfunding, they propose: (a) a
multi-billion dollar investment in public and community housing; (b) taxation
incentives to encourage affordable private rental housing and (c) explicit
policies and housing form designs and locations that facilitate access for
young people. The NYC recommends:
-
The development of a new national affordable housing strategy for
Australia, with explicit attention to the needs of young people and in
particular disadvantaged young people.
C Refocus service provision on building and resourcing ‘communities of services’
Here they are talking about the coordination of services, both across regions,
but also across government departments and programs (like ‘joined thinking’
in the UK, or inter-ministerial collaboration in Canada). Their ‘communities of
services’ model would will require:
-
124
A refocus of Commonwealth and State/Territory funding for services and
programs on a common community level template and
The provision of cross-sectoral/cross-departmental resources to support the
development of sustainable ‘communities of services’.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix B ━ Roadmap for Youth Homelessness
A.B
→ Roadmap for Youth Homelessness (Australia)
D Prevent homelessness by supporting ‘at-risk’ families
This refers to preventive support that assists families in a practical, needs-based
way before they become homeless. Research on a program called Home Advice
demonstrates this is possible in 9 of 10 cases. The NYC recommends that:
-
E
Resource early intervention for at risk young people
Here they are referring to school-based programs for recently homeless
young people, like Reconnect. They have plenty of research that shows the
effectiveness of this approach in reducing homelessness, but feel that not
enough is being done in this area. They recommend the government needs to:
-
F
The HOME Advice program be progressively expanded as a preventive
response to homelessness for families at risk of becoming homeless.
Triple funding for 'Reconnect' (from $20 million to $60 million per year) to reach
a larger proportion of the at-risk population and ensure that every community
in the nation has sufficient early intervention capacity to impact on the number
of young people at-risk of homelessness or recently homeless.
A new national approach for the care and protection of children in all states
and territories
As in Canada and elsewhere, they recognize profound problems in their child
welfare system and that young people who have been in state care are overrepresented amongst the homeless. They see the need for a national approach
(remember they are encumbered by a federal system of government like
Canada), a national review of care and protection (urgent) and the need for
aggressive reforms.
-
A full Human Rights and Equal Opportunity inquiry to expose the issues
and develop proposals for a national response.
A strengthening of care and protection for at-risk 12-17 year olds.
Urgent remedial attention to staff resources and incentives for experienced
staff to remain in a critical but difficult area.
Leaving care support on a needs-basis for all young people exiting care
and protection.
G Ensure supported accommodation is accessible in all communities
Supported accommodation (i.e. SAAP) remains a core component of
Australia’s response to homelessness and an exemplar of innovative diversity
by international standards. There hasn’t been growth in the program for ten
years and given its success, they feel it should be expanded.
-
125
Expand supported accommodation using a national community template
to ensure that every community can adequately provide supported
accommodation for young people in need.
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix B ━ Roadmap for Youth Homelessness
A.B
→ Roadmap for Youth Homelessness (Australia)
H Redevelop employment, Drug and Alcohol and mental health programs for
homeless young people
Income and employment are of course necessary for any stable solution to
homelessness. Addressing addictions is also important, as is mental health. They
recognize the need to expand programming in all areas to target young people.
TNYC calls for:
-
-
-
I
A new form of youth housing which links housing to education, training and
employment programs
This is an excellent focus and builds on the UK Foyer model (see page 101)
as it packages accommodation with other support, particularly education and
training. “Other initiatives that have been considered include accommodation
for homeless school students, and ‘boarding school’ projects linked to
Indigenous communities." The NYC recommends that:
-
J
the development a national system of accessible drug and alcohol services
for young people. National funding of an estimated $100 million would be
required to deploy a system adequate to meet existing need, with an urgent
need for $20 million initially.
the development of a national program at an estimated cost of $25 million,
to work intensively with homeless young people who have mental health
issues, their families and the workers who support them.
the construction a continuum of employment programs for homeless
young people that incorporates JPET and offers appropriate foundation
education, training, vocational options as well as new models of supported
employment that builds new links with support and accommodation
programs.
one-third of the $150 million committed by the Commonwealth Government
on housing for homeless people should be applied to develop a new
layer of youth housing for homeless young people, connected closely to
education, training and employment.
Post-vention support
This refers to support for young people once they have obtained housing,
recognizing that even when young people have housing, problems can occur
and they may slip back into homelessness. They propose a tailored, outreach
kind of support with the goal that every homeless young person moving
beyond supported accommodation should have access to this. All young
people moving from SAAP into some form of independent living need to
receive needs-based outreach support.
Further Reading:
http://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/australias-homeless-youth-report
126
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix C
A.C
1.3
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)
Framework to End Youth Homelessness:
A Resource Text for Dialogue and Action
“The framework focuses on two complementary strategies. The strategies include
a data strategy, to get to better data on the numbers and characteristics of youth
experiencing homelessness and a capacity strategy, to strengthen and coordinate
the capacity of Federal, State and local systems to act effectively and efficiently
toward ending youth homelessness. Work related to each of these strategies is
categorized within three phases. The phases include: I.) activities that can begin
immediately; II.) activities that will require new resources; and III.) longer-term
activities that build on earlier efforts and may require new resources and/or
legislative authority. A logic model outlines the strategies and phases of the youth
framework”
(USICH, 2013:3)
Strategy: Getting Better Data
Strategy: Building Capacity for Impact
The data strategy includes the following areas of work:
Better data can inform the scale of investments and the types
of service delivery and coordination that are needed to end
youth homelessness. In turn this information will guide work to
build the capacity of systems and service providers to meet the
challenge. This capacity strategy outlines a basic flow of activity
for building capacity to improve youth outcomes. The planning
should take into account unique needs of young people to
prevent new homelessness among vulnerable youth and to
prevent and eliminate chronic homelessness among youth who
already survive in unsafe or unstable living arrangements. The
capacity strategy includes the following areas of work:
1. Developing better strategies for counting youth in Pointin-Time (PIT) counts of homelessness
2. Coordinating Federal data systems that collect
information on youth experiencing homelessness and
their receipt of services
3. Launching a national study on the prevalence and
characteristics of youth homelessness
4. Using the national study methodology
1. Disseminating a preliminary, research-informed
intervention model for approaching service delivery (See
Figure 9 on next page)
2. Reviewing screening and assessment tools and effective
interventions to improve youth outcomes
3. Improving service capacity for homeless youth and
subpopulations
4. Implementing service strategies and evaluating those
strategies
127
A Homeless Hub Research Paper
Appendix C ━ Appendix C
A.C
→ Appendix C
Figure 9
Intervention Model for Approaching
Service Delivery.
For more information
Download “Opening Doors”
http://usich.gov/PDF/OpeningDoors_2010_FSPPreventEndHomeless.pdf
Download the youth framework slide set
http://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/STD_Youth Framework_10_11_12_FINAL.pdf
Download the youth framework handout in Opening Doors Amendment 2012
http://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_OD_Amendment_YouthModelsHandout.pdf
Download the youth framework
http://www.usich.gov/resources/uploads/asset_library/USICH_Youth_Framework__FINAL_02_13_131.pdf
128
A Homeless Hub Research Paper