Making the ConnectionUnderstanding Youth Engagement And Its Impacts On Homelessness And Housing Instability

Presented by Youth PATHSSponsored by Community Education Networkand HRDC’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy

We wanted to know… Do Community Education Network programs and services

help to prevent or reduce youth homelessness?

How do we define homelessness and housing instability? “Homelessness describes 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.” (CHRN, 2012: 1)

What contributes to youth homelessness and housing instability? Family breakdown or chronic conflict Experience of sexual, physical or emotional abuse and/or

neglect No stable source of income Limited or no employment experience Poor social and life skills Conflict with the law Left custodial care or child welfare system Mental health and/or physical health problems Substance abuse issues A history of violence or trauma Identified minority, disability, Aboriginal or LBGT identity

What’s different for local youth? Low vacancy rates for rental housing (1.7% in April 2011 in

Corner Brook—the largest urban center on the west coast of the province)

Distance from essential services and supports not available in home communities

Employment opportunities often tied to mobility Visibility of homelessness not in keeping with public

perception or understanding of the problem, rural homelessness is a “hidden” phenomenon

Social stigma and marginalization associated with trying to access support services in small communities

So here’s what we asked… How do social support networks of family, friends, and community

contribute to prevention and intervention effectiveness? Are there other identified contributing factors and how do they impact on youth engagement?

How do individual needs influence the effectiveness of engagement strategies? Are programs which address individual needs more effective in engaging youth than those designed with more rigid criteria?

What is the long-term impact of youth participation in social support, skills development and employment programs? Do programs which engage at-risk youth prevent or reduce the risk of homelessness and if so, how?

Here’s where we looked… We talked to program staff, youth participants, community

partners and government sponsors We gave out surveys, held focus groups, conducted

interviews and completed extensive research We listened to people from all over the Bay St.George and

Burgeo areas to hear their experiences and thoughts

Here’s what we found out…

CEN programs make a difference Community Education Network offers a variety of programs

and resources that support individuals, families and communities

We looked at a few of these key programs including: Community Youth Network Family Resource Center/Healthy Baby Club Youth Outreach Worker Housing Support Worker Skills Link

How do these programs address housing issues? In keeping with their mandates, each program offers

educational, training or employment opportunities for participants

In some way, each promotes social inclusion and community engagement

They support individual’s with barriers and often complex needs such as mental health or addictions issues

Each program creates change for the participant regardless of the need for crisis, short-term or long term supports

How does the individual change? All the programs work to enhance or build on a participant’s

existing strengths and assets while enhancing essential support networks

The programs promote new opportunities for learning and acquiring new skill sets

Participants gain increased self-esteem, improved resilience and build a better foundation for positive-decision making and lifestyle choices

Short vs. Long term interventions Both short term (0-six months) and long term (six months+)

proved to have a positive impact on youth participants The length of the intervention doesn’t necessarily determine

the measure of the improvement For example: a short, pre-employment program can have

lasting effects as it impacts an individual’s earning potential and security. In contrast, some participants may require a much longer period of support to reach the same outcome because of complex needs or employment barriers

Entry criteria CEN programs typically share three central entry criteria for

participant acceptance into programs The age of the participants allows individuals to access

services that are appropriate to their life experience and for collaboration with a suitable peer group

The place of residence allows participants to access services in locations most convenient for them

The program mandate is the most diverse and problematic criteria as it is largely determined by funders and reflects expected milestones and performance figures

What’s the bigger picture? By addressing both the individual’s barriers and capacities,

these program’s successfully mitigate some many of the underlying causes and potential risks for youth homelessness or housing instability

All of the programs look to change the “trajectory” of a participant’s life

Immediate outcomes may include securing suitable, sustainable housing

Long-term outcomes include connection to post-secondary education or full time employment

How can we be more effective partners with youth? Bring awareness and education relating to homelessness

into the school environment earlier Involve youth at the planning and decision making levels to

identify needs and solutions Partner with schools and government to conduct long term

studies of promising interventions Recognize that youth identities and needs reflect individual

cultural context including LGBT and Aboriginal youth

What can youth do to help? Get involved—nothing significant can change without direct

participation from youth Have your say—youth are the experts on the issues that

effect them and the solutions and resources they need Action isn’t enough—take ownership, accountability,

responsibility Ask for opportunities that are meaningful to you and the

aspirations you have Understand that your input is valuable and necessary

Engagement and NEET Youth Karen Rempel, PhD, published a study out of Manitoba that

relies on a formula for measuring engagement as the proportion of the total youth population 15-29 not attached to compulsory education, postsecondary education or employment.

This rate of engagement uses the acronym, NEET, or Not in Employment, Education or Training. The NEET rate has been adopted as a formal indicator of a country’s social and economic health.

NEET Findings The 2011 research was based on surveys of 1800 rural, NEET youth

between the ages of 15 and 29. Again, the study’s respondents closely reflect the profile of unattached youth in the Bay St.George area.

  Average age 22 50/50 male/female 60% respondents of Aboriginal ancestry Nearly 40% with children 82 % had some employment experience although less than 1 in 4

currently had any kind of stable – although part-time - employment More than 70% had not completed high school. 41% had less than

grade 10 Nearly 60% had moved at least once to a different community in the

previous 12 months

So…? This study illustrates the importance of timely and relevant

interventions for youth leaving school. Without engagement in employment or training within the first

year after leaving high school, positive outcomes for youth begin to decline and the risks grow

Long term risks High risk of homelessness (continuum of situations) – range of

situations over a lifetime Social exclusion – multi-dimensional (e.g. psychological, social,

criminal) Lifelong - NEET youth out of school or work are highly likely to stay out

of work or lack educational achievement throughout their lives Progressive – leads to other issues health, crime, addictive behaviors,

homelessness Multi-generational that grows exponentially over time Detaches groups and individuals from social relations and structural

institutions (e.g., schools, cultural and recreational activities, training programs)

Impedes social, economic and community development

Lessons learned… We need to continue addressing the diversity of youth and

culture within the community We should strive to meet youths’ identified needs with the

solutions of their choosing rather than prescribe a remedy Youth engagement should encompass meaningful activities

with opportunities for collaboration and leadership Pursue community and government partnerships to help

better understand youth engagement and housing issues through research and resource development

The way forwardTo put these lessons into practice we need to re-evaluate our approaches to service provision by:Tailoring services to individuals not broad demographicsRecognizing unique contextual and cultural implications for youth and their support networks, ie LGBT, AboriginalGiving youth more leeway in determining their own outcomes and means of engagementImproving communication and coordination between community partners, government services and stakeholders

Want to learn more? Visit us online to find out more about youth housing issues,

engagement and the resources and services available to help.

Check us out at: http://communityeducationnetwork.ca/initiatives/youth-paths/