A critical examination of the youth foyer model for alleviating homelessness: Strengthening a promising evidence base

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Evidence Base

Australia and New Zealand School of Government

Subject: Management

GET ALERTS

eISSN: 1838-9422

DESCRIPTION

53
Reader(s)
58
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Related articles

VOLUME 2015 , ISSUE 4 (December 2015) > List of articles

  • |

A critical examination of the youth foyer model for alleviating homelessness: Strengthening a promising evidence base

Iris Levin / Joseph Borlagdan / Shelley Mallett / Jehonathan Ben

Citation Information : Evidence Base. VOLUME 2015 , ISSUE 4 , ISSN (Online) 1838-9422, DOI: 10.21307/eb-2015-004, December 2015 © 2015.© The Australia and New Zealand School of Government

License : (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Published Online: 27-February-2017

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

This article assesses the quality of 15 primary studies that examined the effectiveness of youth foyer or foyer-like programs on the lives of young homeless people. The youth foyer model provides an integrated approach to tackling youth homelessness, connecting affordable accommodation to training and employment. In Australia, there is growing support from government for the development and funding of foyer programs. However to date, there has been very limited development and investment in the evidence base on the effectiveness of this model in Australia or internationally. Following an extensive literature search, we argue that there is a need to lift the standard of the evidence base of youth foyer effectiveness. We discuss two main issues: the difficulty studies had validating claims of foyer effectiveness, and limitations of research design and methodology. The implications of the lack of rigour in the research reviewed are three-fold. Firstly, youth foyer evaluation study quality could be improved by: clearer methodological and model documentation; post intervention follow-up design; comparison of data to non-randomised comparison groups; and a pre-publication peer-review process. This would be supported with clearer expectations from the research community regarding the production and assessment of grey literature. Secondly, while the standard of reporting needs to be raised, the ‘gold standard’ (i.e. randomised controlled trials) of research design in the scientific community is not a relevant benchmark in the field of homelessness research. This is due to the complexity of homelessness interventions and the inadequate funding of the homelessness research field. Greater investment in robust research and evaluation should accompany the substantial investment in youth foyer programs in order to accurately appraise the effectiveness of the youth foyer model. Thirdly, the lack of rigour in the studies reviewed suggests gaps in the service development of the youth foyers that were evaluated in the articles considered in this evidence review. The research reviewed was mostly unable to report key program mechanisms, pointing to a lack of program documentation. Ideally, strong service development practices would enable evaluative studies to explore the link between foyer model mechanisms and outcomes. Policy implications include putting in place a system for ensuring adequate program documentation with robust research design and methods, using a theoretical framework for the interpretation of findings, and adopting a peer-review process. To achieve this, public sector commissioners of youth foyers need to tighten the evaluation and research components when funding new foyers, recognising the critical relationship between service development and research.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

  1. ABS 2012a. 4922.0. Information paper - a statistical definition of homelessness, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, viewed 2 December 2015,  
  2. ABS 2012b. 2049.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Estimating Homelessness, 2011, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra, viewed 7 August 2015,  
  3. AHURI 2015. Editorial Board Members, Australian Housing Research Institute, Melbourne, viewed 12 August 2015,  
  4. AIHW 2012. Australia’s Health 2012, Australia’s Health Series no.13. Cat. no. AUS 156, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
  5. Anderson, I and Quilgars, D 1995. Foyers for Young People: Evaluation of a Pilot Initiative, Centre for Housing Policy, University of York 
  6. Barker, J, Humphries, P, McArthur, M and Thomson, L 2012. Literature Review: Effective Interventions for Working with Young People who are Homeless or are at Risk of Homelessness, Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra 
  7. Bellefontaine, SP and Lee, CM 2014. Between black and white: Examining grey literature in meta-analyses of psychological research, Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23: 1378–88 
  8. Berry, M, Chamberlain, C, Dalton, T, Horn, M and Berman, G 2003. Counting the Cost of Homelessness: A Systematic Review of Cost Effectiveness and Cost Benefit Studies of Homelessness, Prepared for the Commonwealth National Homelessness Strategy, AHURI, Melbourne 
  9. Carlin, E 2010. Feeling Good: Supporting Resilience in Young People in Foyers in England, The Foyer Federation 
  10. Common Ground Community and Good Shepherd Services 2009. The Chelsea Foyer at the Christopher at Five Years: Lessons in Developing Stable Housing and Self-Sufficiency for Homeless Youth and Youth Exiting Foster Care, Funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation 
  11. Commonwealth of Australia 2008. The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness, Homelessness Taskforce, Canberra 
  12. EJD Consulting and Associates 2013. South West Sydney Youth Hub Project: Incorporating the Foyer Model, Department of Family and Community Services and Housing NSW, Sydney 
  13. Engage Programme no date. Evaluation of Engage Programme, Engage 
  14. EPHPP 2009. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, Effective Public Health Practice Project, viewed 13 August 2015,  
  15. Fopp, R 2015. ‘Problematising Aspects of Evidence-Based Policy: An Analysis Illustrated by an Australian Homelessness Policy 1985-2008’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 50(3): 297-317 
  16. Foyer Foundation 2015. Foyer Foundation, viewed 7 June 2015,  
  17. Foyer Health Programme no date. Evaluation Report on the Foyer Health Programme 2007–2010 
  18. Funnell, SC and Rogers, PJ 2011. Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco 
  19. Grace, M, Keys, D, Hart, A and Keys, B 2011. Achieving (Extra)ordinary Aspirations: A Research Project Exploring the Role that Step Ahead Program Has Played in the Lives of Young People Affected by Homelessness, Melbourne City Mission and Victoria University, Melbourne 
  20. Grayson, L 2002. Evidence Based Policy and the Quality of Evidence: Rethinking Peer Review, ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice, Queen Mary, University of London 
  21. Gronda, H 2009. Evidence to Inform NSW Homelessness Action Priorities 2009–2010, AHURI 
  22. Gronda, H, Ware, V-A and Vitis, L 2011. What Makes a Difference? Building a Foundation for Nationally Consistent Outcome Measures. National Homelessness Research Agenda 2009–2013 Australian Housing Research Institute Melbourne 
  23. Hanover, 2012. Youth Foyer Project – Information Sheet, viewed 3 December 2015,  
  24. Hwang, SW, Tolomiczenko, G, Kouyoumdjian, FG & Garner, RE 2005. ‘Interventions to Improve the Health of the Homeless: A Systematic Review’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 29(4): 311-9 
  25. Hopewell, S, Clarke, M and Mallett, S 2005. Grey literature and systematic reviews, in HR Rothstein, AJ Sutton and M Bornstein (eds), Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments, John Wiley and Sons LTD, Chichester 
  26. Johnson, G, Daniel Kuehnle, Parkinson, S, Sesa, S & Tseng, Y-P 2015. Sustaining Exits from Long-Term Homelessness: A Randomised Controlled Trial Examining the 48 Month Social and Economic Outcomes from the Journey to Social Inclusion Pilot Program, RMIT University, University of Melbourne, Sacred Heart Mission, Melbourne 
  27. Kaplan, J 2014. Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Better Evaluation, viewed 28 January 2016,  
  28. Lawrence, A 2014. Grey Literature Review Code, Australian Policy Online, Melbourne, viewed 7 August 2015,  
  29. Lawrence, A, Houghton, J, Thomas, J and Weldon, P 2014. Where is the Evidence? Realising the Value of Grey Literature for Public Policy and Practice, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, Melbourne,  
  30. Leigh, A 2009. What evidence should social policymakers use?, Economic Roundup, 9(1): 27–43 
  31. Livingstone, C, Rintoul, A and Francis, L 2014. What is the evidence for harm minimisation measures in gambling venues?, Evidence Base, 2: 1-24 
  32. Lovatt, R and Whitehead, C 2006. Launch Pad for Life: An Assessment of the Role of Foyers in Housing Association Provision, Report commissioned by the Housing Corporation, University of Cambridge 
  33. Mallett, S, Rosenthal, D, Keys, D and Averill, R 2010. Moving Out, Moving On: Young People’s Pathways in and through Homelessness, Taylor and Francis, London 
  34. Mallett, S, James, S, McTiernan, N and Buick, J 2014. Education First Youth Foyer Practice Framework, Hanover Welfare Services and Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne 
  35. Morris, A and Jamieson, M, Patulny, R 2012. Is social mixing of tenures a solution for public housing estates?, Evidence Base 1: 1–21 
  36. Parsell, C, Fitzpatrick, S & Busch-Geertsema, V 2014. ‘Common Ground in Australia: An Object Lesson in Evidence Hierarchies and Policy Transfer ‘, Housing Studies, 29(1): 69-87 
  37. Pawson, R and Tilley, N 1997. Realistic Evaluation, SAGE, London 
  38. Pleace, N 2013. Evaluating Homelessness Services and Strategies: A Review, HABITACT, viewed 7 December 2015,  
  39. Popay, J, Rogers, A and Williams, G 1998. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research, Qualitative Health Research, 8(3): 341-51 
  40. Quilgars, D 2001. Dispersed Foyers: A New Approach? An Evaluation of the Shortlife Plus Project, Centre for Housing Policy, University of York 
  41. Quilgars, D, Johnsen, S and Pleace, N 2008. Youth Homelessness in the UK: A Decade of Progress?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York 
  42. Ralphs, R 2004. Beyond Transitions: Problematizing the Experience of Young People in Contemporary Society, PhD Thesis, Department of Sociology, The Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester 
  43. Randolph, B and Wood, H 2005. An Interim Evaluation of the Miller Live ‘N’ Learn Campus, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Sydney 
  44. Rogers, PJ 2010. Learning from the evidence about evidence-based policy, in Productivity Commission (ed.), Strengthening Evidence Based Policy in the Australian Federation, Volume 1: Proceedings, Productivity Commission, Roundtable Proceedings, Canberra 
  45. Ronicle, J 2013. Evaluation of Connect Yourself: Final Report, York Consulting LLP, Leeds 
  46. Schorr, BL and Farrow, F 2011. Expanding the Evidence Universe: Doing Better by Knowing More, Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington 
  47. Scutella, R, Bevitt, A, Chigavazira, A, Herault, N, Johnson, G, Moschion, J, Tseng, Y-P, Wooden, M & Kalb, G 2015. Journeys Home Research Report No. 6: Complete Findings from Waves 1 to 6, Melbourne Institute, Melbourne 
  48. Smith, J, Browne, O, Newton, V and O’Sullivan, A 2007. What Happened Next? A Report on Ex-Residents of Foyers, Centre for Housing and Community Research, Cities Institute, London Metropolitan University 
  49. Steen, A and Mackenzie, D 2013. Financial Analysis of Foyer and Foyer-like Youth Housing Models, Swinburne University, Homelessness Research Collaboration, Melbourne 
  50. Taylor, H, Stuttaford, M, Broad, B and Vostanis, P 2005. Evaluation of the Strong Minded Mental Health Service for Young Homeless People in Foyers, University of Leicester 
  51. Taylor, H, Stuttaford, M and Vostanis, P 2006. A UK survey on how homeless shelters respond to the mental health needs of homeless young people, Housing, Care and Support, 9(2): 13–8 
  52. Tyndall, J 2008. How Low Can We Go? Towards a Hierarchy of Grey Literature, presented to the Dreaming 08 – Australian Library and Information Association Biennial Conference, Alice Springs, NT Australia 
  53. University of Melbourne 2015. Grey Literature for the Health Sciences, University Library, viewed 7 August 2015,  
  54. Wilson, DB 2009. Missing a critical piece of the pie: Simple document search strategies inadequate for systematic reviews, Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5: 429–40 
  55. Worley and Smith, J 2001. Moving Out, Moving On: From Foyer Accommodation to Independent Living, YMCA, London.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS

  • |