Social Housing & Homelessness Concept Paper Foyer Model Youth Foyer Proposed Model Paper

Alignment to National Partnership Agreements on Homelessness (NPAH)

NPAH Key Targets	Alignment with NPAH
By 2013, a decrease of 7 per cent in the number of people who are homeless to fewer than 1268 people	By developing skills, education and training of young persons they are more likely to break the cycle of homelessness.
By 2013, a decrease by one third the number of Indigenous people who are homeless to fewer than 83 people.	The Foyer model will provide services for indigenous persons to break the cycle of homelessness
By 2013, a decrease of 25 per cent in the number of people who are sleeping rough to fewer than 62 people.	The Foyer model will provide supported accommodation for rough sleepers who are willing to undergo training, education or gain employment.
By 2013, reduce by 25 per cent the number of people exiting social housing and private rental into homelessness to fewer than 260 people.	By developing skills, education and training of young persons they are more likely to sustain social housing or private rental.
By 2013, reduce by 25 per cent the number of people experiencing three repeat periods of homelessness at an emergency service in 12 months to fewer than 75 people	The Youth Foyer aims to break the cycle of homelessness for young persons thereby reducing repeat periods of homelessness.
By 2013, reduce by 10 percentage points the number of young people (12 to 18 years) who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are not a student after support	Assists young people (15 to 18 years) who are homeless or at risk of homelessness to be re-engaged with family, school, training and work.

Recommendation

It is recommended that:

• 
  The proposed Youth Foyer Model is approved for implementation subject to refinements of the proposed model through the community consultation process.
  
• 
  This proposed Youth Foyer Model paper is used as a basis for consultation with the community sector to provide for discussion and feedback on the preferred unique model for the ACT context as per Option 3.
  
• 
  The built form for the Youth Foyer consist of a 9 unit stairwell and a 6 unit block of the 42 unit Apartment Complex being built by the department on Block 1, Section 13 Braddon, Corner Ipima and Henty Streets, Braddon (see drawings below).
  

Picture removed: (for a full copy of this document with images contact Satnam Singh [phone] or Nicole Moore [phone])

Chapter 2 Introduction

Background to Initiative

The Affordable Housing Action Plan included a recommendation to maintain tenancies by linking housing for youth at risk of homelessness with employment and training. The Foyer Model was explored by the Steering Group and the following recommendation was made ‘Introduce a youth Foyer model in the Territory linking youth housing with opportunities for employment and training for people aged 16 to 25 years.

This proposal has now been incorporated with other initiatives under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH). The proposed Youth Foyer will contribute to the key priorities of ‘turning off the tap’ and ‘breaking the cycle’ that are outlined in the ‘ACT Road Map’. It will also assist the ACT to meet milestones and targets under the NPAH.

The report on the 2006 National Census, Counting the Homeless 2006, showed that 76 percent of the ACT’s homeless were aged 34 or younger (58 percent nationally) including 22 percent aged 12 – 18 years and 22 percent who were children under 12 years (12 percent nationally). This means homelessness services should be targeted at this age group and in particular the less than 18 age group.

It is acknowledged that youth homelessness is a complex, emergent outcome of the interaction of structural factors (such as poverty, community exclusion, education, employment markets and housing supply) and individual risk factors (such as addiction, relationship breakdown, mental illness and lack of life skills). Reducing homelessness will therefore require a whole of community effort underpinned by a revised service system response.

In the white paper the road home the federal government outlined a Foyer service as a best practice model for supporting young homeless people The Foyer model has demonstrated that providing homeless persons with stable accommodation and providing links to education, training and employment the cycle of homelessness may be broken.

In light of the high youth homelessness rate in the ACT and the need to try different models of service delivery support young people out of homelessness the Act government through the NPAH has decided that the foyer is a service worthwhile bringing to the ACT.

This initiative is being developed under a range of service delivery and policy reforms aimed at improving homeless outcomes and more broadly addressing the issue of social inclusion, including responding to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island disadvantage and supporting persons from CALD backgrounds. Under the Homelessness NPA, the ACT has identified local targets in consultation with the Australian Government.

The key ACT targets for the year 2013 are as follows

• 
  decrease of 7 percent in the number of people who are homeless to fewer than 1268 people;
  
• 
  decrease by one third the number of Indigenous people who are homeless to fewer than 83 people;
  
• 
  decrease of 25 percent in the number of people who are sleeping rough to fewer than 62 people;
  
• 
  reduce by 25 percent the number of people released from such institutions into homelessness to fewer than 98 people;
  
• 
  reduce by 25 percent the number of people exiting social housing and private rental into homelessness to fewer than 260 people;
  
• 
  reduce by 25 percent the number of people experiencing three repeat periods of homelessness at an emergency service in 12 months to fewer than 75 people;
  
• 
  number of young people (12 to 18 years) who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are re-engaged with family, school and work;
  
• 
  reduce by 10 percentage points the number of young people (12 to 18 years) who are homeless or at risk of homelessness who are not a student after support.
  

ACT Context

The report on the 2006 National Census, Counting the Homeless 2006, showed that 76 percent of the ACT’s homeless were aged 34 or younger (58 percent nationally), including 22 percent who were children under 12 years (12 percent nationally) and 22 percent aged 12 – 18. The ABS Australian Census Analytical Report estimated that there were 307 homeless teenagers (aged 12 – 18 years) in the ACT and of these 148 were homeless school students.

There is a strong commitment from all levels of government to reduce homeless by introducing new reforms and initiatives. Although some structural factors may influence outcomes to continue to do things the same way will not achieve the goals set under the national agenda. There is a need for ACT Government with consultation to design a service system that will best achieve the NAHA outcomes within the parameters of the funding resources that will be available.

The initiatives of the Homelessness NPA go part way towards addressing the reforms needed to change service delivery and meet the key reform priorities, improve housing and homelessness outcomes, and addressing the need for appropriate support to those most in need.

The system also needs to move beyond ‘houselessness’ and focus efforts more broadly including fundamental skills development (literacy and numeracy) as a way towards improvements in employment and education outcomes, greater connections with the community and increased social inclusion.

The new system needs to actively address current homelessness and to prevent future homelessness by establishing and sustaining long term housing for all those who need it as well as addressing the broader issues around education and employment that contribute to people staying in the homeless cycle.

There needs to be a move away from public housing being seen as the only sustainable option for long term housing, with the growth of community and affordable housing and increased support to access and retain private rental and home ownership. The way ahead is to ensure there are programs in place that encourage people to look at these wider options and to ensure that they are provided with the necessary support to assist them into affordable housing, private rental or home ownership.

Key Issues for ACT

Foyers provide necessary accommodation and in most cases deliver services to youth for their development, training and employment. The Foyer model generally is set up to assist youth with low to medium support needs for young people post their original crisis. This may not address the high needs cases among ACT homeless youth.

There was a range of other issues that required careful examination to ensure the successful implementation of a foyer type model in the Act. These issues have been canvassed and addressed in this paper. Some of the key issues included the:

• 
  1. Target group – 16 to 24 years (low and medium needs only), appropriate mix of persons (Whether to include exiting out of home care, persons exiting remand /detention / Bimberi, university students etc).
  
• 
  2. Safety and security of residents (level required, secure rooms, secure building and grounds).
  
• 
  3. Service linkages (what linkages to services will be required).
  
• 
  4. Management and operation (level of staffing and type, Concierge, Caretaker, presence 24/7).
  
• 
  5. Partnerships – for programs, operations and tenancy
  
• 
  6. Quality assurance system and monitoring (Office of Registrar requirements).
  
• 
  7. Sustainability (cost efficiencies, sponsorship).
  
• 
  8. Social inclusion and community engagement.
  

A further issue was raised by the ACT Youth Coalition in their comments about ACT Budget Youth initiatives stated “The Youth Coalition strongly supports the provision of transitional housing with integrated support for young people aged 16 – 25 years. However, we don’t necessarily support the Foyer Model in itself, which is evidenced by our homelessness research".

Challenges for the ACT

The following complexities therefore need to be considered in developing a suitable model for the ACT context:

• 
  Type of accommodation needed is dependent on model.
  
• 
  Location of model near services
  

• 
  New building or refurbishment of existing structure
  
• 
  What support is required
  
• 
  Type of facilities to be included in the building including IT
  
• 
  Security
  
• 
  Accommodation / furnishing / whitegoods
  
• 
  Stakeholder engagement in building and maintenance
  
• 
  Rental model and utilities
  
• 
  Government funding for affordable rental (Commonwealth and Territory)
  
• 
  Community engagement
  

• 
  Potential for linkages with other government programs, including education and training programs.
  

The model to be developed for the ACT would need to access an existing public housing portfolio building in reasonably good condition as there has been no capital funding allocated to establish a Foyer. The model would also require this building(s) to be in a relatively central location that could accommodate 40 residents and have communal facilities such as a laundry, meals area and offices for studying/Internet and staff.
Chapter 3 Proposed Model
Proposed Model in the ACT

Criteria for Success

A successful supported accommodation model for young people would provide:

• 
  accommodation and support to young people who agree to participate in education, training or employment.
  
• 
  effective housing for disadvantaged young people who need support to maintain their accommodation.
  
• 
  have outcomes that will break the cycle of homelessness.
  

Limitations

The Foyer model is effective only to the extent of the individual’s commitment to change; therefore it is not appropriate for all young people. If the Foyer model is introduced as a form of supported accommodation for young people in the ACT, it must be within the broader continuum of care.

This means high support accommodation services and low-cost accommodation options for young people will need to be available for those young persons not suitable for a Foyer. Also, young persons will still require prevention and early intervention services

Foyer Models

There are three main Foyer models:

1. Integrated – Accommodation and services within one building.

2. Dispersed – Accommodation and services in separate buildings but located in close proximity to each other.

3. Networked – Group of one main foyer accommodation dwellings closely networked in an umbrella structure.

Integrated Foyer Model

This is the most common type of foyer model in operation in the UK where accommodation and most services for a young person are provided “in house”. There are usually training and other facilities for the young person provided in the one building including a meals area or restaurant. Examples of these Foyers are the new build foyers in London and the Birmingham Foyer – see Appendix 1

Examples are:

Birmingham Foyer – this is a large urban integrated model with 80 units, it provides New Deal & Basic Skills programs, commercial activities, works with non-residents.

Manchester Foyer – this is a large urban integrated model with 61 units, it provides New Deal & Basic Skills programs, commercial activities, works with non-residents.

Harlow Foyer – is also a large urban integrated model with 116 units. It has a café, IT Centre, youth information service, Training Rooms and its work includes young offenders and those with mental health issues.

Focus E15 Foyer – is the largest urban integrated model in the world with 210 units. It has an IT Suite, Community Radio Project, Training Rooms and targets aspects of its work to young parents, ex-offenders, care leaver and again those with mental health issues.

Dispersed Foyer Model

A dispersed foyer model occurs where accommodation provision is in single units or apartments dispersed in a local area in a range of different buildings in relative close proximity. One of the locations is used for an office, common area and training room for foyer activities such as skills training etc. The dispersed model could also be described as a virtual Foyer model – the group of dispersed apartments making a virtual foyer. This model was trialled in London with some success but did not continue after the trial period.

Examples are:

Luton Foyer – is an urban dispersed model with 13 units. It provides ‘New Deal’ and other training activities, and health services for predominantly non-residents.

Shortlife Plus – is an urban dispersed floating support model with 63 units across South London. It uses empty mainstream properties that come available. It has recently acquired a central base to run a range of training and education services.

Richmond FOYER - is a small rural model with 13 dispersed units, a central base with mobile service for non-residents, youth activities centre.

Networked Foyer Model

These types of Foyers have a central hub or main foyer accommodation building with a number of mini foyers in other locations in the local region all linked to the main foyer. In a networked foyer there are communal facilities in each foyer accommodation building but the main administration, management, enterprises and support services are provided from the central hub or main foyer building. A good example of this type of foyer is the Aberdeen foyer in Scotland - see Appendix 1

Examples are:

Aberdeen FOYER - is a networked urban and rural Foyer with 76 units and central hub or main foyer building. A trading arm of the Foyer operates a successful restaurant and gallery and a graphic design service. A wide range of training provision, an IT suite, and training centre. Services include drug rehabilitation work, mental health services, cancer prevention work and work with young offenders and care leavers.

Strengths

The main strengths of the Foyer model are:

• 
  they offer a holistic approach to the problems faced by many homeless young people (aged 16 – 25).
  
• 
  they bring together under one umbrella (though not necessarily in one place) services that help support the transition to independence and potentially break the cycle of homelessness.
  
• 
  they provide safe and ‘affordable’ accommodation with personal support and access to learning and employment opportunities.
  
• 
  they in the main have effective outcomes for young homeless persons including:
  

• 
  62% of Foyer residents are more confident in dealing with other agencies on exit.
  
• 
  25% gain first qualification while at a Foyer.
  
• 
  72% in employment or training on exit.
  

• 
  they provide value for money – cost-effective in comparison with other provision
  
• 
  in many cases, their services reach well beyond Foyer residents and provide benefits for local communities.
  
• 
  young people are re-engaged with family, school and work.
  
• 
  effective transitions for young people into long term accommodation to break the cycle of homelessness.
  
• 
  young people achieve stability and independence, reducing their need for continuing support services.
  

Small Foyers

The majority of Foyers are fairly large complexes and achieve economies of scale in relation the provision of services. In small Foyers the following additional limitations occur:

• 
  Personalised but unable to respond to a mix of residents with different needs.
  
• 
  Very limited capacity to accept high needs young people.
  
• 
  Security is limited to support staff monitoring.
  
• 
  After hours staffing or supervision is a significant issue for most.
  
• 
  Struggle to develop mentoring community within the foyer.
  
• 
  Vulnerable to the influences of few.
  

ACT Youth Foyer

The options considered for the ACT Youth Foyer are discussed in detail in the next chapter. The ACT Youth Foyer as a relatively small foyer will need to address the limitations outlined above if it is to operate successfully and provide the best outcomes for participants.

It is proposed that some of the above limitations can be overcome or mitigated by adopting the following policies and practices:

• 
  Develop personalised case plans and support measures to respond to a mix of residents with different needs.
  
• 
  Target young people with low to medium needs.
  
• 
  Ensure security is adequate and residents are safe.
  
• 
  Provide a resident manager/mentor for after hour’s supervision.
  
• 
  Provide external provider to develop mentoring community within the foyer.
  
• 
  Encourage appropriate behaviours with rewards system and discourage inappropriate behaviours by instituting a three warnings and then termination of participation in Foyer program/ tenancy.
  

It is therefore proposed that the ACT Youth Foyer adopt the above policies and practices which are discussed in more detail in later chapters of this proposal paper. These policies and practices should overcome the limitations of relatively small Youth Foyers and ensure the success of the Foyer and sound outcomes for all participants.

Chapter 4 Options Considered

Options Considered

The options considered for implementation of a Youth Foyer in the ACT are summarised in the table hereunder and fully discussed in this chapter. The three options considered relate to the type of Youth Foyer to be introduced to the ACT and the level of connectedness to the UK Foyer Federation model.

Table - Summary of Options Considered

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1. Adopt a Foyer model that meets accreditation requirements of the Foyer Foundation.	Ensures policies and standards of the Foyer Foundation are maintained. Provides a proven system that assists the majority of tenants. Provides access to Foyer Foundation and new developments.	HACT may not agree with policies and standards of the Foyer Foundation that will need to be implemented. Foyer model/system may not fit the ACT context. Requires registration and accreditation fees to be paid to Foyer Foundation.
2. Implement a model using Foyer philosophies adjusted for the ACT context.	Will fit with other youth services in the ACT. Provides access to all youth at risk of homelessness.	May still require registration and accreditation if Foyer “Brand” or ‘philosophies” used. Does not provide additional resources for high support group. Requires formal referral process and contract with tenants.
3. Introduction of a unique model for the ACT context.	Will fill gap in youth services in the ACT. Links to other ACT programs for youth. Provides access to all youth at risk of homelessness. Provide effective exiting and move on strategies for participants to break homeless cycle.	Requires service standards to be developed. Need for rules for tenants and non-compliance processes. Limited streaming of assessments.

Discussion of Options

Option 1. Adopt a Foyer model that meets accreditation requirements of the Foyer Foundation.

Description:

This option requires the development of a fully registered and accredited Foyer by the Australian Foyer Foundation. The Foyer model requires the adoption of the Foyer Foundation standards, philosophies and practices to gain accreditation and to be able to use the Foyer ’brand’ in Australia.

Advantages:

• 
  Ensures policies and standards of the Foyer Foundation are maintained.
  
• 
  Provides a proven system that assists the majority of tenants.
  
• 
  Provides access to Foyer Foundation and new developments.
  

Disadvantages:

• 
  HACT may not agree with policies and standards of the Foyer Foundation that will need to be implemented.
  
• 
  Foyer model/system may not fit the ACT context.
  
• 
  Requires registration and accreditation fees to be paid to Foyer Foundation.
  

Comment:

A Foyer model would meet most of the requirements for a successful model however the department and the operating organisation would be tied to meeting Foyer accreditation standards and philosophies. This may not necessarily be a bad thing if the department continued to agree with those standards and philosophies but this may not always be the case.

UK Foyers are required to demonstrate that they have robust supervision, appraisal and strategic and operational planning processes as part of the validation process. There may be political ramifications etc if the validation process detects weaknesses for failures in the above areas resulting in the foyer not being accredited.

The continuing cost of Foyer registration and accreditation is another factor that needs to be taken into account. While the amount is not a substantial cost it does add a continuing administrative cost (– the Miller foyer in NSW was paying approx $47,000 in annual fees/registration to the Foyer Federation before they severed ties in 2008 – this was the equivalent of approx $1,600 per tenant per annum).

A further consideration is the possibility of media/political comment if the Foyer foundation failed to accredit the ACT model or the operating organisation.

Option 2. Implement a model using Foyer philosophies adjusted for the ACT context.
Description:

This option proposes the general adoption of Foyer philosophies using the Foyer model of service provision but adjusted for the ACT context. This option seeks to adopt the UK Foyer model without the formal registration and accreditation processes of the Foyer Federation.

Advantages:

• 
  Will fit with other youth services in the ACT.
  
• 
  Provides access to all youth at risk of homelessness.
  
• 
  Complies with UK Foyer Federation principles without formal registration and accreditation processes.
  

Disadvantages:

• 
  May lead to copyright challenges if Foyer “Brand” or ‘philosophies” used.
  
• 
  Does not provide additional resources for high support group.
  
• 
  Requires formal referral process and contract with tenants.
  

Comment:

This option allows the UK Foyer model to be adopted with some flexibility to provide for ACT conditions and environment. The core criteria or tenants of the foyer model would still need to be followed. These are:

1. The focus is on helping disadvantaged young people aged 16 - 25 who are homeless or in housing need, achieve the transition from dependence to independence.

2. The approach to the young person’s needs is holistic. The Foyer offers integrated access to, at a minimum, affordable accommodation, training, guidance, personal development and job searching facilities.

3. The relationship with the young person is based on a dynamic formal agreement as to how the Foyers’ facilities and local community resources are used in making the transition to independence, commitment to which is conditional of continued residence in the Foyer.

The three tests are used as the basis of an Accreditation Scheme which sets high but achievable standards to promote the best quality of services across the movement. These tests of foyerness are achievable and would form the basic model for the ACT context.

Option 3. Introduction of a unique model for the ACT context.

Description:

Under this option a unique model specifically developed for the ACT context would be implemented where the Foyer brand or philosophies would not play a part in the development of the model.

Advantages:

• 
  Will fill gap in youth services in the ACT.
  
• 
  Links to other ACT programs for youth.
  
• 
  Provides access to all youth at risk of homelessness.
  
• 
  Provide effective exiting and move on strategies for participants to break homelessness cycle.
  

Disadvantages:

• 
  Requires service standards to be developed.
  
• 
  Need for rules for tenants and non-compliance processes.
  
• 
  Limited streaming of assessments.
  

Comment:

Will fill gap in youth services in the ACT

At present there is no youth accommodation option in the homelessness sector that provides effective linkages to education, employment or training. A unique ACT model could fill this gap in service provision by providing these necessary linkages to break the cycle of homelessness.

A unique ACT model would provide supported accommodation and establish linkages with:

• 
  ACT Colleges, Universities and the Canberra Institute of Technology and other organisations providing education and training.
  
• 
  ACT Employers and Employer organisations.
  

Links to other ACT programs for youth.

There are existing programs for youth in the ACT that could provide links with a unique youth foyer model for the ACT. For example, youth exiting “Out of Home Care” programs would be able to access the foyer to support these young persons make the transition from dependence to independence.

Youth exiting detention or parole programs may also be able to access the youth foyer provided they assessed as suitable and were willing to undertake education, training or employment. A unique ACT model would allow a planned approach to be taken for youth in the above programs to ensure they have effective exit strategies and link into community supports.

Provides access to all youth at risk of homelessness

A unique ACT youth foyer model would be able to provide all homeless youth access to a youth foyer rather than restricting access to particular categories as other youth foyer models may by establishing restrictive eligibility criteria.

It is considered the ACT model should adopt the Commonground organisation approach of accepting all homeless persons provided they are willing to accept and abide by the rules set by the organisation. This usually means tenancy and acceptable behaviour requirements necessary for the successful operation of a foyer.

Provide effective exiting and move on strategies for participants

Effective exiting and move on strategies are critical for a youth to break the cycle of homelessness. A unique ACT model could adopt the proposed cyclic Individual Needs Analysis and Support Plan (see Chapter 5) for participants that tailors support to the holistic needs of individual participants and plans future support in agreement with the participant.

In this way moving on strategies can be developed and discussed with the individual. This allows agreement and ownership of the proposed actions with the youth and provides for effective transitioning arrangements and a pathway to independence and out of homelessness.


Chapter 5 Location and Building

Proposed location for Model in the ACT

The physical location of a foyer is one factor that is relatively important to its success. If one of the prime outcomes is to support a young person to gain an education or obtain employment training it is a necessity to locate the proposed Model near or in close transport vicinity of educational and training establishments.

The combined experience of more than 130 foyers in the UK has demonstrated that they must be centrally located to education, training and work. Ideally they are located near public transport, education, training and work opportunities. This also provides an ethos for the establishment and sends a strong message to both young people and the community that the foyer residents are valued by placing them in an area of greatest potential.

The key location criteria or features for a Foyer are:

• within 10 mins travelling from a commercial centre

• ready access to public transport

• safe and attractive area or environment

• close to required facilities – ie. medical, shops, leisure

• close to training (Educational facilities TAFE, Uni)

• easy access to employment

• busy street to allow shop-front activities

An ACT Foyer should therefore be located taking into account access to transport links, employment opportunity, and training organisations. This would mean it would need to be located near a business area that also had education establishments in close proximity. In the ACT context this would mean that the Foyer would need to be located in either of the following:

1. Braddon/ Civic / Reid:

(Employment – Civic, Braddon)

(Education/training – CIT Reid Campus, ANU)

2. Phillip:

(Employment –Phillip and Woden Town centres)

(Education/training – CIT Southside Campus - Woden, Canberra College);

3. Bruce

(Employment – Belconnen Town Centre)

(Education – CIT Bruce Campus, University of Canberra); or

4. Gungahlin Town Centre

(Employment – Town Centre and Mitchell)

(Education – Burgmann College, CIT Learning Centre (opening in 2011).

5. Dickson/Watson

(Employment – Civic/ Dickson/ Braddon)

(Education – Australian Catholic Uni & ANU).

Locations of Educational Institutions and CIT Campuses and the courses offered are provided at Appendix 3.

All ACT Colleges provide a range of courses suitable for the potential target group of foyer residents – see proposed courses for 2011 at Appendix 3.

Building

The most successful Foyer buildings are those that are purpose built or remodelled with the Foyer concepts taken into account. A successful Foyer would most likely be located in a building that contributes to the area, is well designed, and caters to the needs of the residents with the required facilities to support study, training or working.

The presentation of the building also has the potential to provide status to the young people living there. Good design is essential for the building to be attractive and practical, secure, and cost and environmentally efficient to operate and sustain.

Successful foyer buildings usually have some or most of the following key features:

• 
  New purpose built buildings or renovated and restored buildings with modern features incorporating tenant facilities, well-planned offices for support staff, training rooms and space for tenant partners.
  
• 
  Common areas to facilitate ‘community’ (is integral to a healthy foyer community and natural mentoring).
  
• 
  State of the art security and IT systems.
  
• 
  High quality fixtures and furniture (to achieve status and feelings of wellbeing etc.).
  
• 
  Environmentally friendly and sustainable (to assist financial efficiency).
  
• 
  Size of the building does not seem critical (although small scale Foyers do loose economies of scale).
  

With the limited funding available for the Youth Foyer in the ACT not all of the above features may be feasible at least in the short term. It will therefore be necessary to consider what features will be available in the buildings on the short list of possible buildings.

Possible Sites

There has been no capital funding allocated for the purchase of a building for a Youth Foyer which means existing ACT Housing stock or buildings under construction will need to be sourced and utilised to provide accommodation.

The Youth Stairwell is presently operating in Kanangra Court which could be incorporated into a Youth Foyer complex with some capital expenditure to modernise fittings and for a re-paint to bring the premises up to a reasonable standard for a Foyer. Some of the units would also need to be converted to common rooms and training rooms etc to provide for the communal nature of the Foyer program. This may not be accepted by the youth service system as the risk is that it may end up with the same level of service it is currently receiving. The location also has gained a reputation which may also be difficult to change.

The most suitable property in each of the main locations in the ACT has therefore been identified to look at the most suitable and available building for a Foyer. These are examined at Appendix 2.

Of those examined the most suitable building for the Youth Foyer is the Apartments being constructed at Block 1, Section 13, Braddon, Corner of Ipima and Henty Streets, Braddon. These are brand new apartments that best meet the stipulated criteria for a Youth Foyer building and are suitably located near facilities, employment and education establishments.

These Apartments would form the main hub of the Youth Foyer providing one apartment for a resident /manager and 8 two bedroom apartments accommodating up to 16 youths at any one time. The other locations considered could be used to provide satellite or mini Youth Accommodation Foyers similar to the Aberdeen Youth Foyer network. These satellite Youth Accommodation Foyers may be suitable for participants who wish to stay in their local area or who are working / attending education or training establishments in other areas of the ACT. This would ensure these participants are within 10 minutes of these institutions or their employment.

Chapter 6 Governance and Management
Governance

The Governance arrangements for Youth Foyers are usually based on a consortia model involving partnership arrangements between the main funding body, a service provider, housing provider and other community and business organisations.

For example, Aberdeen Foyer is a Company limited by guarantee and a registered Scottish Charity which is governed by its Memorandum and Articles of Association. A Board of Directors administers the Charity and comprises directors appointed by funding bodies, the Housing Association and members of the company. Day to day management of the Aberdeen Foyer is delegated to a Chief Executive.

The ACT Youth Foyer would also need to be set up on a consortia model to ensure engagement of community, business and educational establishments such as the CIT. The ACT Foyer will also need to rely on fundraising and activities that raise funds for operations. This means a consortia model based on a company limited by guarantee and registered as a not for profit organisation similar to the Aberdeen model would need to be implemented in the ACT. This would allow community organisations, service providers and Housing ACT as the housing provider to be involved in partnership.

The above arrangements would need to be implemented overtime and would involve detailed discussions with all stakeholders. It is therefore proposed that a Governance Steering Committee be set up in the first instance to guide the introduction and implementation of the Youth Foyer in the ACT. The Governance Steering Committee could then guide the development of more permanent Governance arrangements as proposed above once the Youth Foyer was implemented and partnerships with community and business established.

Management

The Management of a Foyer is usually undertaken by the organisation that owns and operates the Foyer building but in some Foyers various management partnerships have been formed to manage different functions. For example, the Chelsea Foyer in the Christopher Building in New York is jointly managed by Common Ground and Good Shepherd Services with Common Ground undertaking building and tenancy management and Good Shepherd Services managing the Foyer Program.

In Australia the Ladder Hoddle Street Youth Foyer has a similar approach with Yarra Community Housing undertaking tenancy management, Melbourne City Mission undertaking program management and Ladder undertaking Foyer operations and mentoring. These approaches work but require clear and precise protocols and memorandums of understanding so that the different organisations are aware of their roles and responsibilities.

In the ACT Youth Foyer it is proposed Housing ACT undertake tenancy management and operational/program management is undertaken by a selected service provider. Other services associated with the Foyer such as mentoring could be outsourced to community providers with expertise in the particular service.

Research has suggested that staff coverage at foyers is important for good resident management and support. It is also seen as being an important factor in reducing issues and crisis situations occurring. Most established Foyers tend to provide 24/7 support on site, with coordinated activities and training. Foyers have a range of staff to manage the foyer, provide support and run foyer activities. The number of staff required depends on the size of the foyer, the level of need of the target group of youth and whether particular functions are outsourced or performed in house.

In general the following functions need to be covered to run a foyer:

• 
  Manager/ Program Director
  
• 
  Case management
  
• 
  Support and counselling
  
• 
  Office/administration
  
• 
  Finance/Tenancy Management
  
• 
  Caretaker/ Maintenance
  

Manager/ Program Director

The level of management also will depend on the actual number of youth being accommodated and the level of support needs of the participants of the Foyer. The table below is an attempt to provide a summary of what level of management is likely to be required for accommodation for 20 youths in the 16 to 25 age bracket.

Case Workers/Support Officers

Caseworkers/ Support Officers provide individual case management to residents. They conduct initial reviews of applications, provide induction to the Foyer program, instigate any life skills training needed by youth and link them to mainstream education programs, establish individual Foyer Resident and Learning Contracts, case plan their resettlement and provide support to move out to independence.

In addition to Caseworkers/Support Officers, a Foyer also requires careful tenancy management that reinforces the work of the casework officers, and gives credibility to the accommodation undertaking. Effective tenancy management is a necessity to maintain viability of the Foyer and to support clients to be able to manage their own tenancy on exit of the Foyer into either private rental or public housing. It needs to train and assist participants to be responsible tenants so that when they exit the Youth Foyer they will be able to sustain a social housing or private housing tenancy.

The above management and support services provided on a 24/7 basis is feasible and sustainable in most Foyers as they usually fairly large establishments where economies of scale can be achieved. These management and support services are harder to sustain for small Foyers unless they are effectively networked into a larger organisational arrangement.

In the ACT context, it will be important to identify organisations to provide the management and tenancy support for the program, so that they can be engaged in the planning and establishment of the program. Alternatively, Housing ACT could manage the residential tenancies under the Youth Housing Program. The other issue that needs to be addressed is the level of management and staff support required to operate the Foyer in the ACT as there has not been enough funding identified in the NPAH to fund a 24/7 service. This will largely depend on the target group of youth to be accommodated in the Foyer and their assessed support needs.

The target group for the ACT Youth Foyer is likely to be in the low to medium needs group with possibly some risk issues. This means the model of Management for this group would be level 3 being the highest needs in the target group of youth. It is therefore necessary to have an on site office and on site staff support during daylight hours of 8.00am to 8.00pm with on call support after these hours. There would also need to be a Manager present during normal working hours to address and respond to issues as they arise.

Table – Management and administration Requirements of a Youth Foyer

Model of Management	Assessed Needs of Youth	Administration Required
Level 1 24 hour on site - waking cover. Continuous support 24/7	High needs youth with risks. Required for very vulnerable young people, those who present a risk to others, or where risk unknown. May need to be able to monitor and manage access proactively during the night, and be able to respond to incidents.	Office on site Manager in Residence Staff rostered 24/7 for provision of support.
Level 2 24 hour on site - sleeping cover	High needs youth. Night time cover is focused upon being able to deter and respond quickly to occasional incidents. Access to accommodation is closely managed.	Office on site and Manager in Residence.
Level 3 Day time (8am – 8pm) on site support (with out of hours on call optional)	Medium needs with some issues. Services with staff on site + on call – to provide structured interventions in young people’s days – such as encouragement to go to college, attend appointments, provide services and support work on site. On call in place based on risk assessments identifying need to be able to respond to young people in crisis on occasional basis.	Office on site and Manager during day / on call out of normal day time hours.
Level 4 Visiting support - daily	Medium needs. Services with staff visiting daily will on site to provide structured interventions in young people’s days.	Office on site only
Level 5 Visiting support - weekly	Low needs some issues. Support tailored to young person	Nil
Level 6 Visiting support – every 2 weeks or less frequently	Low needs. Support tailored to young person	Nil