Blakley, Ryan --- "Youth Homelessness In Australia: Where Are We Now?" [2022] UNSWLawJlStuS 3; (2022) UNSWLJ Student Series No 22-3

---

YOUTH HOMELESSNESS IN AUSTRALIA: WHERE ARE WE NOW?

RYAN BLAKLEY

I INTRODUCTION

To address the growing social and economic problem of youth homelessness, interventions need to move away from short-term crisis responses to measures that prevent young people from becoming homeless in the first place and promote the accessibility of long-term housing options for those that do become homeless. Despite an understanding of the complex intersection between youth homelessness and other social issues, Australia’s conception of homelessness is still largely fixated on the physical dwelling and ‘houselessness’. This is reflected in the current approach to measurement, as well as our default response to youth homelessness; the provision of short-term crisis and transitional accommodation, reflecting a policy conviction that homelessness is a short-term crisis that can be solved by simply putting a roof over someone’s head.

While crisis and transitional accommodation will always remain important, Australia’s dependency on it as the primary intervention has not actually reduced youth homelessness over time. Therefore, our system needs a re-balancing, and this essay offers several promising areas of social innovation that encourage cross-sector collaboration to prevent the first experience of homelessness for a young person, as well as its re-occurrence for those that do engage with crisis and transitional accommodation services. These collaborative initiatives include the ‘community of schools and services’ model (‘COSS’), the youth foyer model and the development of youth specific housing companies.

II HOMELESSNESS IN AUSTRALIA

There are two popular definitions for homelessness in Australia. The first is a ‘statistical’ definition used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).^[1] This definition frames homelessness in terms of the inappropriateness of someone’s current living arrangements.^[2] For example, severe overcrowding and limited space for social interactions are both elements of this perspective.^[3]

The second is a broader ‘cultural’ definition.^[4] This is framed in terms of whether someone’s accommodation falls short of minimum community standards.^[5] For example, staying in a caravan park is described as ‘tertiary’ homelessness.^[6] Logically, the risk of homelessness then becomes the risk that someone would lose their accommodation or that it would fall below cultural expectations.^[7]

As the term ‘homelessness’ would suggest, the issue seems to be consistently framed by housing terminology. This is largely a product of the need for a measurable and consistent framework to provide homelessness estimates, a policy debate that has developed over the last decade.^[8] Interestingly, the ABS did not provide its own definition of homelessness until 2008, a year that coincided with the government’s landmark report on homelessness.^[9]

This Australian definition also draws influence from overseas.^[10] In Europe, homelessness is described by the European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion as being without a ‘home’.^[11] Again, this definition of the ‘home’ is conceptually rooted in the physical dwelling and the degree of personal space someone can own.^[12]

For completeness, it should be noted that our framework is more comprehensive than America’s definition. In America, only those sleeping rough or in shelters are counted in their homelessness estimates, a cohort that contains approximately 550,000 people.^[13] If this narrow definition was applied in Australia, only 21,000 individuals would be considered homeless.^[14] While those sleeping rough or in shelters would be easily identifiable for a census count, it only captures the visible element of homelessness and fails to consider the hidden aspects of the problem, such as ‘couch-surfing’.^[15] These nuances are somewhat caught by the Australian definition.

While the need to provide clear measurement metrics is understandable, our housing-centric definition does not capture the full picture.^[16] Homelessness is a devastating example of social disadvantage and exclusion. For example, only 2% of homeless young people are employed full-time despite more than half looking for work.^[17]

Research published by the Australian Catholic University’s Institute of Child Protection Studies revealed distressing experiences of homeless young people in the Australian Capital Territory.^[18] A common theme was violence, abuse, neglect, and substance abuse as the norm from a young age.^[19] Interactions with existing services and even foster care, interventions purportedly designed to help, were described as just as isolating and challenging.^[20]

Therefore, homelessness is clearly a problem that extends beyond the lack of a physical home to live in. The 2020 Parliamentary Inquiry into homelessness in Australia revealed that there were 116,427 individuals classified as homeless in 2016, approximately 0.5% of the national population then.^[21] However, this cohort is not a homogenous group and the causes, experiences and impacts of homelessness vary across different demographics.^[22] Young people under the age of 25, the focus of this essay, are one of the most vulnerable cohorts of the homeless.

III THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COSTS OF YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

Young people are disproportionately represented within Australia’s homeless population. 24,000 young people aged between 15-24, or approximately 21% of the homeless population, were classified as homeless in 2016.^[23] Many homeless young people were recorded as staying temporarily overnight at a friends or family’s place, or in overcrowded accommodation,^[24] again highlighting the housing-centric lens that permeates the current approach to measurement.

From a service delivery perspective, the overrepresentation of young people is even worse. Approximately 43% of those who access homelessness services are under the age of 25.^[25] While the number of young people accessing these services has remained relatively stable over the last decade,^[26] the current system has not actually reduced youth homelessness despite a proliferation of research on the issue.^[27]

Given their overrepresentation within the service user cohort, it becomes easy to quantify the costs of youth homelessness in budgeting terms. For an accommodation provider, such as a youth refuge, the average annual cost of supporting a young person is around $15,000.^[28] The most granular figure available from the Productivity Commission is that supporting a young client costs $30 per day.^[29] Since homelessness services are funded by the federal, state and territory National Housing and Homelessness Agreement, these costs can also be attributed to government budgets.^[30]

However, this budgeting cost fails to capture the broader economic and social costs. Youth homelessness viciously intersects with other social issues, such as domestic violence, mental ill health, juvenile justice, and school leaving.^[31] The complexity of youth homelessness is illustrated by the fact that these factors can be both a cause and effect of homelessness simultaneously.

The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia report referenced several important dimensions for examining the broader costs: health, education, and justice system outcomes.^[32] Homeless young people use health services more intensely than the general population and this use is skewed towards more severe treatment, including overnight stays, rehabilitation, and the emergency department.^[33] Similarly, homeless young people are more likely to interact with the justice system.^[34]

Apart from the obvious economic cost of health treatment and incarceration, these experiences are also damaging for the individual in the long run. One theoretical conception of homelessness is that it is a dynamic ‘career’, an ongoing process where a person can ‘enter’ and ‘exit’ homelessness at different stages of their life.^[35] There are two forces that underpin this. First, the earlier someone becomes homeless, the more likely they are to experience long-term or chronic homelessness.^[36] Second, the longer someone experiences homelessness, the more likely they are to experience a range of negative life outcomes.^[37]

Therefore, the costs of youth homelessness extend well past an individual’s first experience of homelessness. Since it typically occurs during adolescence, if not earlier, youth homelessness predisposes individuals to a poorer quality of life as an adult, compounding the immediate costs of the first experience.^[38] This dynamic can also be seen through the relationship between youth homelessness and education.

Early school leavers are more likely to experience homelessness as an adult and homeless young people also make up a significant proportion of early school leavers.^[39] Since the probability of employment is directly linked to an individual’s level of educational attainment, youth homelessness can entrench unemployment, dependency on welfare payments and social disengagement.^[40]

Therefore, youth homelessness goes beyond mere ‘houselessness’. Youth homelessness intersects with various social issues and simply framing the costs of the problem in budget dollar terms would be too narrow of a perspective. Furthermore, given the overrepresentation of young people in the homeless cohort, Australia has a serious youth homelessness problem that requires urgent attention.

IV THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESPONDING TO YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

Before examining the interventions in play, it is important to briefly acknowledge the key actors within the youth homelessness sector. This sits within the broader conversation of who should drive the reform of the current system, a much-needed transformation that will be discussed shortly.

There are three overlapping layers to the current sector. At the top level, the Commonwealth is largely responsible for providing service funding and policy direction.^[41] The state and territory governments also contribute to the funding mix however, they have the added responsibility of overseeing service delivery.^[42] The service delivery component is largely driven by the not-for-profit sector on the ground.^[43] The private sector is also responsible for a limited number of interventions.^[44] However, for simplicity, they will be excluded from this analysis with the dominant non-government contributor being the not-for-profit sector.

Australia’s social service sector has been widely criticised as a number of siloed services and systems.^[45] Therefore, collaboration is an area of improvement with key actors often following inconsistent approaches.^[46] This divergent relationship is clear in the case of individual government policies. For example, the NSW 2018-2023 strategy identified young people as a definite priority group while South Australia’s Adelaide Zero Project only focused on rough sleepers, a cohort that somewhat overlaps with youth homelessness.^[47]

Therefore, in addressing youth homelessness, a greater level of cross-sector collaboration is required. With the Geelong Project, youth foyer and My Foundations Youth Housing (‘MFYH’) projects proving to be successful examples of collaborative interventions, it is hoped that the much-needed system change will include a range of stakeholders.

V THE DEFAULT RESPONSE TO YOUTH HOMELESSNESS: CRISIS AND TRANSITIONAL SUPPORT

Government-supported interventions that directly helped young people experiencing homelessness only began to emerge in the 1970s.^[48] The first notable example of this was the 1979 Commonwealth Youth Services Scheme, a 3-year program that funded short-term emergency accommodation for young people.^[49] This was based on the policy view that youth homelessness, and homelessness in general, was a temporary crisis that could be alleviated by simply providing a short-term place to stay.^[50] Unfortunately, this flawed perspective has not disappeared with time.^[51]

Australia’s existing homelessness service system is comprised of approximately 1,500 Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS).^[52] The bulk of this group are organisations that provide crisis and transitional accommodation to help young people re-integrate back into the community.^[53] This model of intervention is also referred to as the ‘staircase’ approach where a young person gradually works their way up from crisis shelter living to transitional housing and finally, independent living in permanent private or social housing.^[54]

The actual living arrangements in these housing supports can vary from single room to congregate living.^[55] However, the overarching goal of crisis and transitional accommodation is to create an environment where the young person can successfully move into independence.^[56] Although it is an important intervention, crisis and transitional accommodation has become the default response to youth homelessness in Australia and this is problematic for two reasons.

First, the ‘staircase’ approach is premised on the flawed notion of conditionality.^[57] To progress up the ‘staircase’ to the next level of housing support, young people need to demonstrate that they are ‘housing ready’, a fiction that will often depend on their willingness and ability to engage with treatment and support services.^[58] For example, young people might be excluded from transitional accommodation if they are unable or unwilling to comply as this would supposedly be an indicator of their ability to pay future rent.^[59]

Echoing the flawed policy view that homelessness is only a temporary crisis, ‘staircase’ thinking also assumes that homelessness can be overcome through individual self-improvement.^[60] While this might be the case for some, it puts young people with complex needs at a significant disadvantage and sets them up for failure, despite them needing support the most.^[61]

Second, crisis and transitional services do not actually prevent a young person from becoming homeless in the first place.^[62] This is because these services are generally only engaged once a young person is in trouble. It could be argued that by helping young people transition to independent living, they reduce the risk of an individual falling back into homelessness. However, this is contingent upon a surplus of social housing stock for young people to move into and unfortunately, the estimated standard wait time of 3 years is just not tenable.^[63]

Australia will always need crisis and transitional accommodation providers at the front line however, for the reasons outlined above, our heavy reliance on them will not effectively reduce youth homelessness.^[64] Our system needs to be rebalanced away from emergency interventions towards responses that prevent young people from becoming homeless.^[65] Interventions that provide housing pathways for young people who receive crisis and transitional support are just as important too, considering the fact that between 40-50% of young people leaving homelessness services experience further homelessness.^[66]

The landmark 2008 Rudd government White Paper, The Road Home, demonstrated evidence of this thinking.^[67] It was the first time the federal government recognised that addressing homelessness required structural changes that went beyond more funding for the crisis oriented SHS system.^[68] The report identified three core strategies, two of which will be emphasised in this essay.

The first relevant strategy concerned ‘turning off the tap’, a reference to the need for more interventions that focused on prevention and early intervention.^[69] The second strategy referenced ‘breaking the cycle’, a call for more housing options to prevent the reoccurrence of homelessness.^[70] The third referred to expanding existing services.^[71] However, considering the above critique, this strategy will not be discussed further.

Together, the government believed that these strategies could ambitiously halve homelessness by 2020.^[72] Disappointingly, a 2019 national report card on youth homelessness conceded that the execution of the 2008 agenda has been underwhelming to-date.^[73] However, the strategies of prevention and early intervention, and providing exit housing pathways for homeless young people, remain an important framework for responding to the problem.

VI PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION STRATEGIES

Prevention and early intervention strategies are designed to reduce the flow of young people into homelessness and take remedial action before problems begin to escalate.^[74] This often involves addressing known drivers and risk factors of homelessness.^[75] Unsurprisingly, the Parliamentary Inquiry emphasised the importance of interventions that addressed family conflict and domestic violence given their strong intersection with homelessness.^[76]

This essay and much of the youth homelessness literature refers to the concept of resolving family conflict. The use of this term is not to imply that the young person is responsible for the conflict. While the family-level causes of youth homelessness are complex, the conflict is often centred around the neglectful or abusive behaviour of a parent, a relationship that has placed the young person in danger at home.^[77]

Therefore, references to resolving family conflict are references to specific family work models that, where it is safe and appropriate to do so, assist the family group to repair their relationship with the young person. These include family therapy, family mediation and narrative therapy.^[78] Family-level interventions also occur in a context where it is understood that reconciliation might not be possible, let alone safe or appropriate.^[79] In these circumstances, it is not the conflict that needs to be resolved, it is the severe abuse or neglect that needs to be prevented.

A The Reconnect Program

Australia’s most established prevention and early intervention initiative is the Commonwealth-funded Reconnect program, which formally began in 1997.^[80] Reconnect is a community of some 100 plus service providers and approximately 200 early intervention workers spread throughout the country.^[81] Reconnect service providers are typically mainstream not-for-profits, including Mission Australia and St Vincent de Paul Society.^[82]

Reconnect engages with young people aged 12-18 years and their families, primarily working through family reconciliation and therapy to boost the family’s ability to communicate and manage conflict together.^[83] A government review of the program in 2013 revealed that 94% of Reconnect clients who had experienced domestic violence were able to meet their goals for re-building contact with family members and improving family connections.^[84] A similar sentiment was echoed in Mission Australia’s review of its seven Reconnect sites in 2016.^[85]

This would suggest that the Reconnect intervention has had a local yet positive impact on the young people involved, who are either experiencing, or are at risk of, homelessness. From a theoretical perspective, this would also suggest that Reconnect has the potential to reduce youth homelessness given family conflict is widely known as a causal factor.

However, the systemic impact of Reconnect is not clear. It could be loosely inferred that since the number of young people accessing SHS over the last decade has remained consistently between 40,000 and 42,000, it has managed to divert some people from homelessness.^[86] Alternatively, since the number has not markedly decreased, Reconnect could be construed as a failure despite it supporting around 7,900 young people in 2019.^[87]

In either case, Australia needs to look to prevention and early intervention solutions beyond Reconnect.^[88] Reconnect demonstrates the benefits of targeting known risk factors and building on this foundation, the COSS model is emerging as an effective coupling of family and school engagement to prevent early-school leaving and by extension, youth homelessness.^[89]

B COSS And The Geelong Project

COSS explores the potential of schools as part of the response to youth homelessness. In effect, it involves identifying and supporting vulnerable students at school to help repair family issues before the student disengages from both family and school.^[90] There is a theoretical grounding for this since the process by which a young person detaches from family is not linear; often following an ‘in and out’ pattern where the individual spends time with friends or ‘couch surfs’ intermittently whenever there is conflict at home.^[91]

The assumption underneath COSS is that if these early warning signs can be identified while the student is still at school, family reconciliation could prevent a range of follow-on consequences.^[92] Around two-thirds of homeless young people over the age of 18 have never completed year 12, emphasising the importance of schools as a site of intervention.^[93] However, in Australia, the rationale for the use of schools is more nuanced and a blanket COSS approach across all schools will likely not be resource efficient.^[94]

Two-thirds of the homeless student population are in about one-third of all schools and so, for many schools, homelessness is only a marginal issue.^[95] For this reason, COSS is an example of ‘place-based’ service delivery, targeting a very specific community in need and engaging a range of stakeholders within it.^[96] The Geelong Project is the clearest Australian example of COSS’s effectiveness in reducing youth homelessness to date.

The Geelong Project is an early intervention collaboration between local secondary schools, not-for-profits, Swinburne University, and government agencies.^[97] There are two foundational elements to the Geelong Project that have contributed to its success. First, the initiative involved a needs survey distributed to students of secondary school age in the Geelong community, a survey developed by the Swinburne research team.^[98] While Reconnect was largely dependent on referrals to vulnerable young people,^[99] this needs assessment allowed Geelong youth agencies to screen the secondary school population and identify those at risk.^[100] In turn, this allowed the project to be proactive, rather than follow the largely reactive approach of Reconnect.

Working closely with the schools involved, local youth services could then deliver family-centred case management to work through issues that would lead to school leaving and homelessness.^[101] Subsequently, the Geelong Project was able to reduce the number of homeless young people in Geelong by 40% and the number of early school leavers by 20%.^[102]

The success of the COSS model in preventing young people from needing SHS is heavily dependent on its ability to engage a range of stakeholders around a shared vision.^[103] While this collaborative approach to service delivery might seem sensible and even obvious, it is unfortunately only being termed an example of social innovation now.

Taking a somewhat contrarian perspective, Parsell and Watts criticised several novel charitable efforts designed to combat homelessness, such as mobile washing vans, arguing that they actually drew vulnerable individuals away from institutional services better placed to help them.^[104] They make the point that there is a clear understanding of the interventions that work and argued that our attention should be directed to them, instead of responses that might create more harm than good.^[105]

In the context of addressing youth homelessness, effective solutions are well known. We cannot blame the country’s slow progress in reducing the problem on a lack of research.^[106] The empirical importance of prevention and early intervention was even echoed in the Parliamentary Inquiry’s final report.^[107] Therefore, it is hoped that in the near future, we begin to see Australia move in the direction of more collaborative prevention and early intervention strategies similar to the Geelong Project, and away from the predominantly crisis-oriented status quo.

VII HOUSING OPTIONS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE ‘EXITING’ HOMELESSNESS

Young people engaging with SHS need access to long-term housing options to prevent a relapse into homelessness.^[108] This is known as a ‘housing first’ approach that prioritises the rapid rehousing of the homeless.^[109] For a young person, a stable and long-term tenancy is crucial to improving life outcomes.^[110] This benefit is even more pronounced in the context of homeless young people, who often have more complex needs. However, conventional housing pathways are currently failing them.

The first ordinary option is social housing. However, from the perspective of social housing providers, the insecure and low income of a young person is often seen as too big of a risk.^[111] This attitude has contributed to the underrepresentation of young people within social housing, with only 3% of primary tenants between the ages of 15-24.^[112] One policy argument has been for governments to increase the social housing stock through direct development however, this will take time.^[113] For example, the NSW Government’s 2016 commitment to 23,000 more social and affordable properties will only be realised over a 10-year period.^[114]

A second option is transitioning a young person to the private market. However, there is only one affordable rental property in Sydney for every 15 very low-income households.^[115] This barrier will be even higher for a homeless young person, who will likely be single and only employed casually, if at all. There are government payments available, such as Commonwealth Rent Assistance (‘CRA’).^[116] However, unfortunately, 75% of young people receiving CRA still spend a disproportionate amount of their income on rent.^[117] Therefore, directly moving a homeless young person to the private market without significant assistance is not tenable.^[118]

Overseas, the Pathways Housing First program set the standard for rapidly re-housing the homeless in the New York private rental market.^[119] Using government vouchers, Pathways was able to control a portfolio of private rentals that it could sub-let to rough sleepers and wrap support around them.^[120] However, Pathways addressed chronic adult homelessness and there are significant differences between the needs of a homeless young person and an adult.^[121] For example, a young person might have no prior experience of independent living or dealing with a landlord.^[122] Therefore, simply reassembling the Pathways model for a different demographic by lowering the age limit will not work.^[123]

The benefits of, and implications for, a general ‘housing first’ approach for young people in Australia have been demonstrated through the 50 Lives 50 Homes project in Perth.^[124] Over a 5-year period, the program placed 47 young people in private and public housing.^[125] While 91% of the young tenants maintained their tenancies past the six-month mark, less were able to sustain a one-year tenancy compared to the older age groups involved in the initiative.^[126] Many also flagged the necessity of aid in developing life skills, indicating the need for more intensive support in providing youth appropriate housing pathways.^[127]

A The Youth Foyer

One promising youth-appropriate housing option is the youth foyer. Originally developed in a post-war France to help young people move from the country to the city,^[128] it is a hostel form of accommodation that is coupled with a mandatory obligation to participate in education, training, or employment.^[129] In the United Kingdom, significant government investment and welfare payment coverage has allowed their foyer network to grow to over 120 facilities however, this public funding dependency has been flagged as an ongoing barrier to the model’s sustainability at scale.^[130]

Importantly, a foyer directly addresses two key developmental needs of young people: accommodation and education. Therefore, it has the advantage of supporting a young person in developing the necessary skills and capabilities required in adulthood.^[131] This sets it apart from the private and social housing options identified above.

Across Australia, 15 foyer-oriented projects have been developed in the last decade and these have supported approximately 500 disadvantaged young people.^[132] Most were developed through a partnership between government and a not-for-profit, with the former providing the funding and the latter becoming the foyer operator.^[133] Evaluations of Australian foyers are only beginning to emerge however from the evidence available, a greater proportion of youth foyer residents achieved a higher level of education during their stay compared to those in traditional crisis and transitional accommodation.^[134]

While there is an emphasis on skill development, a foyer does not address the more complex needs of homeless young people. A foyer does deliver some case management support ordinarily expected of SHS however, the paramount goal is achieving educational outcomes. Therefore, a foyer is best positioned to support individuals who are leaving transitional accommodation, since their needs would be supposedly less complex than when they first presented themselves to SHS or experienced homelessness.^[135]

So, in effect, a foyer best supports those ‘recovering’ from homelessness and is a useful pathway out. There has been an argument made for youth foyers to be assembled as on-campus accommodation for disadvantaged students at university and technical colleges.^[136] The Holmesglen TAFE Youth Foyer in Victoria is a compelling example of this.^[137] Considering the foyer’s emphasis on education, this would seem sensible. However, to have a noticeable impact on youth homelessness, youth foyer opportunities need to exclusively focus on those leaving SHS.

Despite its promise, the greatest barrier to the foyer’s future is financial viability. KPMG modelling revealed that compared to transitional accommodation, youth foyers delivered more public benefits, a figure in the range of $10 million.^[138] However, this would only be realised over a 20-year period.^[139] On average, existing Australian foyers are experiencing an annual loss of approximately $18,100 per client, indicating that the rent received from a young person is currently well below what is required to meet high operating costs.^[140]

While a high capital requirement should never be the only indicator of a social service’s effectiveness, it does query whether the foyer will be a sustainable housing alternative for homeless young people and by extension, whether a novel housing intervention could even be developed due to the high costs required for survival. Fortunately, the advent of Australia’s first youth housing company provides another avenue through which the current response could be re-balanced away from emergency interventions. However, like the foyer, this will not be without significant cross-sector investment in the future.

B Youth Specific Housing Companies

To make the social housing market more accessible for vulnerable young people, youth-specific social housing companies are a new site of innovation. MFYH, an NSW-based property manager, is Australia’s first pilot of this initiative.^[141]

Like the youth foyer, MFYH aims to gradually prepare clients for independent living in the private rental market.^[142] Unsurprisingly, almost all of its 650 tenants are engaged with local support services and education or employment opportunities.^[143] This housing option may echo the problematic staircase model discussed previously however, there are two crucial points of differentiation that give MFYH the advantage over both ordinary transitional support and the youth foyer.

The first is MFYH’s progressive rental regime. Under this, a tenant’s rent is gradually scaled up to market rates over a 5-year period.^[144] Since rent instability is a significant barrier to disadvantaged young people achieving a secure tenure, this gradual incline makes MFYH social housing more affordable. Moreover, MFYH tenants compete in a labour market against young people who are not facing homelessness and since this will likely produce fluctuating incomes,^[145] MFYH’s rent model is more responsive to their changing circumstances.

The second is MFYH’s partnership-oriented approach. MFYH was co-developed with the NSW Government to reduce the current dependency on SHS accommodation services and government funding has underscored its ability to manage 500 properties so far.^[146] Aside from direct investment in new social housing, MFYH will only be able to increase its properties under management from government stock transfers.^[147] Subsequently, MFYH’s national expansion will depend on cooperation, future partnerships and funding agreements with other state and territory governments.

This reiterates the need for greater government investment, as well as more public sector and not-for-profit social partnerships, to address youth homelessness. Although better placed than the private sector, the public sector simply does not possess the resources to solve wickedly complex social problems and although the weight of government involvement is typically through funding, cross-sector collaboration is an effective mechanism for change.^[148]

In the context of youth homelessness, not-for-profits would likely possess front-line information not at the government’s disposal.^[149] When coupled with public sector resources around a shared goal, what could be achieved remains an open-ended question. This optimistic perspective could be construed as too naive however, considering MFYH’s local success in offering youth-appropriate social housing, there is reason to believe that brighter opportunities could be around the corner for Australia’s homeless youth through cross-sector collaboration.

VIII CONCLUSION

Despite a growing awareness around the extent of the problem and the most effective interventions, Australia’s default response to youth homelessness is still the provision of crisis and transitional accommodation. To reduce this growing economic and social problem, our system needs to explore interventions that prevent young people from experiencing and re-experiencing homelessness. Fortunately, cross-sector collaboration has yielded several promising opportunities that, if scaled across the country, could deliver effective and much-needed system reform.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A Articles/Books/Reports

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Information Paper – A Statistical Definition of Homelessness (Catalogue No 4922.0, 4 September 2012)

Barker et al, ‘Literature Review: Effective interventions for working with young people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness’ (Research Paper, Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, June 2012)

Clarke, Andrew, Cameron Parsell and Margarita Vorsina, ‘The role of housing policy in perpetuating conditional forms of homelessness support in the era of housing first: Evidence from Australia’ (2020) 35(5) Housing Studies 954

David MacKenzie et al, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system for young people’ (AHURI Final Report No 327, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, April 2020)

David MacKenzie et al, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia: Research Briefing’ (Research Briefing, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, April 2016)

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, ‘Reconnect: Departmental review’ (Departmental Review, Australian Government, February 2013)

Finlayson, Charlotte, Danika Hardiman and Jacqui McKenzie, ‘Social Housing for Young People in NSW’ (Policy Paper, Youth Action, December 2016)

Flatau, Paul and Anna Paris, ‘Homelessness Early Intervention Programs in the Private Rental Market’ (2009) 22(3) Parity 42

Gaetz, Stephen, ‘A Safe and Decent Place to Live: Towards a Housing First Framework for Youth’ (Research Report No 12, Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, The Homeless Hub, 2014)

Hand, Tammy and David MacKenzie, ‘A clarion call for youth homelessness system reform’ (2020) 33(3) Parity 32

Hand, Tammy and David MacKenzie, ‘Still missing out: Young people and social housing’ (2021) 34(3) Parity 38

Herault, Nicolas and Guy Johnson, ‘Homelessness in Australia: Service Reform and Research in the 21st Century’ (2016) 10(3) European Journal of Homelessness 127

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into homelessness in Australia (Final Report, July 2021)

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, ‘Our Homeless Children: Report of the National Inquiry into Homeless Children’ (Research Paper, Australian Parliament, January 1989)

Mackenzie, David and Monica Thielking, ‘The Geelong Project: A community of schools and youth services model for early intervention’ (Research Paper, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, July 2013)

McDonald, Sharyn, ‘Social partnerships addressing affordable housing and homelessness in Australia’ (2014) 7(2) International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis 218

Noble-Carr, Debbie and Sebastian Trew, ‘“Nowhere to go”: Investigating homelessness experiences of 12-15 year olds in the Australian Capital Territory’ (Final Report, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, 2018)

Parkinson, Sharon and Cameron Parsell, ‘Housing First and the Reassembling of Permanent Supportive Housing: The Limits and Opportunities of Private Rental’ (2018) 35(1) Housing, Theory and Society 36

Parsell, Cameron and Beth Watts, ‘Charity and Justice: A Reflection on New Forms of Homelessness Provision in Australia’ (2017) 11(2) European Journal of Homelessness 65

Steen, Adam and David MacKenzie, ‘Financial Analysis of Foyer and Foyer-like Youth Housing Models’ (Research Report, Swinburne University, June 2013)

Upstream Australia, Submission No 196 to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Inquiry into homelessness in Australia (September 2020)

Vallesi, Shannen, Donna Quinn and Lisa Wood, ‘An Evaluation Snapshot: Youth Experiences of Housing First – Zero Project Snapshot’ (Research Report, University of Western Australia, August 2021)

B Others

‘Australia’s youth: Homelessness and overcrowding’, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Web Page) https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/homelessness-and-overcrowding

‘Reconnect’, Australian Government Department of Social Services (Web Page) https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children-programs-services/reconnect#find-reconnect-service

---

^[1] House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into homelessness in Australia (Final Report, July 2021) 9.

^[2] Ibid.

^[3] Ibid 10.

^[4] Ibid 8.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Ibid 9.

^[7] Ibid 8.

^[8] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Information Paper – A Statistical Definition of Homelessness (Catalogue No 4922.0, 4 September 2012) 9.

^[9] Ibid.

^[10] Ibid 16.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] Upstream Australia, Submission No 196 to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, Inquiry into homelessness in Australia (September 2020) 22.

^[14] Ibid.

^[15] Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (n 1) 39.

^[16] Ibid 37-41.

^[17] David MacKenzie et al, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia: Research Briefing’ (Research Briefing, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, April 2016) 11.

^[18] Debbie Noble-Carr and Sebastian Trew, ‘“Nowhere to go”: Investigating homelessness experiences of 12-15 year olds in the Australian Capital Territory’ (Final Report, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, 2018).

^[19] Ibid 21-2.

^[20] Ibid 27-9.

^[21] Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (n 1) 25.

^[22] Ibid 89-92.

^[23] ‘Australia’s youth: Homelessness and overcrowding’, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Web Page) https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/homelessness-and-overcrowding.

^[24] Ibid.

^[25] David MacKenzie et al, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system for young people’ (AHURI Final Report No 327, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, April 2020) 8.

^[26] Tammy Hand and David MacKenzie, ‘A clarion call for youth homelessness system reform’ (2020) 33(3) Parity 32, 32.

^[27] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 7.

^[28] MacKenzie, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia’ (n 17) 24.

^[29] Ibid.

^[30] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 8.

^[31] Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (n 1) 89-98.

^[32] MacKenzie, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia’ (n 17).

^[33] Ibid 13-5.

^[34] Ibid 16-8.

^[35] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 15.

^[36] Barker et al, ‘Literature Review: Effective interventions for working with young people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness’ (Research Paper, Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, June 2012) 2.

^[37] Ibid.

^[38] Ibid.

^[39] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 17.

^[40] MacKenzie, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia’ (n 17) 28.

^[41] Upstream Australia (n 13) 50.

^[42] Ibid.

^[43] Ibid.

^[44] Paul Flatau and Anna Paris, ‘Homelessness Early Intervention Programs in the Private Rental Market’ (2009) 22(3) Parity 42, 42-44.

^[45] Upstream Australia (n 13) 51.

^[46] Ibid 55-61.

^[47] Ibid 46-8.

^[48] Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, ‘Our Homeless Children: Report of the National Inquiry into Homeless Children’ (Research Paper, Australian Parliament, January 1989) 9.

^[49] Ibid 10.

^[50] Nicolas Herault and Guy Johnson, ‘Homelessness in Australia: Service Reform and Research in the 21^st Century’ (2016) 10(3) European Journal of Homelessness 127, 128.

^[51] Ibid 138.

^[52] MacKenzie, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia’ (n 17) 5.

^[53] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 76.

^[54] Andrew Clarke, Cameron Parsell and Margarita Vorsina, ‘The role of housing policy in perpetuating conditional forms of homelessness support in the era of housing first: Evidence from Australia’ (2020) 35(5) Housing Studies 954, 954.

^[55] Barker (n 36) 20-2.

^[56] Ibid 21.

^[57] Clarke (n 54) 957.

^[58] Ibid.

^[59] Ibid 964.

^[60] Ibid 957.

^[61] Ibid 967-9.

^[62] Hand, ‘A clarion call’ (n 26) 33-4.

^[63] Clarke (n 54) 963.

^[64] Hand, ‘A clarion call’ (n 26) 34-5.

^[65] Ibid.

^[66] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 35-6.

^[67] Herault (n 50) 129-32.

^[68] Ibid 138.

^[69] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 8.

^[70] Ibid.

^[71] Ibid.

^[72] Herault (n 50) 130.

^[73] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 7.

^[74] Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (n 1) 159.

^[75] Ibid 160.

^[76] Ibid 162.

^[77] Barker (n 36) 13-4.

^[78] Ibid 14-5.

^[79] Ibid 13-4.

^[80] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 44.

^[81] Ibid 18.

^[82] ‘Reconnect’, Australian Government Department of Social Services (Web Page) https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children-programs-services/reconnect#find-reconnect-service.

^[83] Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, ‘Reconnect: Departmental review’ (Departmental Review, Australian Government, February 2013) 9.

^[84] Ibid 25.

^[85] Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (n 1) 164.

^[86] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 44.

^[87] Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (n 1) 164.

^[88] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 44.

^[89] Ibid.

^[90] David Mackenzie and Monica Thielking, ‘The Geelong Project: A community of schools and youth services model for early intervention’ (Research Paper, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, July 2013) 1-3.

^[91] Ibid 18.

^[92] Ibid.

^[93] MacKenzie, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia’ (n 17) 28.

^[94] Mackenzie, ‘The Geelong Project’ (n 90) 16-7.

^[95] Ibid.

^[96] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 47-8.

^[97] Mackenzie, ‘The Geelong Project’ (n 90) 2-3.

^[98] Ibid 23.

^[99] MacKenzie, ‘The Cost of Youth Homelessness in Australia’ (n 17) 25.

^[100] Mackenzie, ‘The Geelong Project’ (n 90) 23.

^[101] Ibid 24-5.

^[102] Upstream Australia (n 13) 56-7.

^[103] Ibid.

^[104] Cameron Parsell and Beth Watts, ‘Charity and Justice: A Reflection on New Forms of Homelessness Provision in Australia’ (2017) 11(2) European Journal of Homelessness 65, 69-71.

^[105] Ibid 73.

^[106] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 7.

^[107] Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs (n 1) 159.

^[108] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 58-9.

^[109] Stephen Gaetz, ‘A Safe and Decent Place to Live: Towards a Housing First Framework for Youth’ (Research Report No 12, Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, The Homeless Hub, 2014) 3-4.

^[110] Charlotte Finlayson, Danika Hardiman and Jacqui McKenzie, ‘Social Housing for Young People in NSW’ (Policy Paper, Youth Action, December 2016) 8.

^[111] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 59.

^[112] Tammy Hand and David MacKenzie, ‘Still missing out: Young people and social housing’ (2021) 34(3) Parity 38, 39.

^[113] Finlayson (n 110) 29-31.

^[114] Ibid.

^[115] Ibid 12.

^[116] Ibid 13.

^[117] Ibid.

^[118] Sharon Parkinson and Cameron Parsell, ‘Housing First and the Reassembling of Permanent Supportive Housing: The Limits and Opportunities of Private Rental’ (2018) 35(1) Housing, Theory and Society 36, 52-3.

^[119] Ibid 46-7.

^[120] Ibid.

^[121] Gaetz (n 109) 5-7.

^[122] Ibid.

^[123] Ibid.

^[124] Shannen Vallesi, Donna Quinn and Lisa Wood, ‘An Evaluation Snapshot: Youth Experiences of Housing First – Zero Project Snapshot’ (Research Report, University of Western Australia, August 2021).

^[125] Ibid 8.

^[126] Ibid.

^[127] Ibid 11.

^[128] Adam Steen and David MacKenzie, ‘Financial Analysis of Foyer and Foyer-like Youth Housing Models’ (Research Report, Swinburne University, June 2013) 18.

^[129] Ibid 16.

^[130] Ibid 19-22.

^[131] Ibid 16.

^[132] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 60.

^[133] Steen (n 128) 25-29.

^[134] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 61.

^[135] Ibid.

^[136] Steen (n 128) 52.

^[137] Ibid 28.

^[138] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 61.

^[139] Ibid.

^[140] Steen (n 128) 46.

^[141] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 62-3.

^[142] Ibid.

^[143] Ibid.

^[144] Ibid.

^[145] Upstream Australia (n 13) 54.

^[146] MacKenzie, ‘Redesign of a homelessness service system’ (n 25) 62-3.

^[147] Ibid.

^[148] Sharyn McDonald, ‘Social partnerships addressing affordable housing and homelessness in Australia’ (2014) 7(2) International Journal of Housing Markets and Analysis 218, 221-2.

^[149] Ibid.