A Powerful Reality – reflections on Foyer impact from Australia

A Powerful Reality – reflections on Foyer impact from Australia.

One of the most valuable pieces of work produced during my 15 years at Foyer Federation was the ‘What Happened Next’ tracking study by Dr Joan Smith and Oonagh Browne in 2007. It was the first time that a longitudinal study looked at the identity and trajectories of young people progressing through Foyers, offering a rich narrative to promote the importance of length of stay, strong support staff relationships, holistic action planning, and lifeskills training in the Foyer approach. I was thus very excited to receive this month the final research published by Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) and Launch Housing in Australia looking at the impact of the excellent Education First Youth (EYF) Foyer model, based on a comprehensive longitudinal research into 162 young people transitioning through 3 Foyers in Victoria between 2013 and 2017. The research is called ‘Starting a Future that means something to you’, a title that hints at the person focused vision of the Foyer approach.  The picture above is taken from its front cover.

The EFY Foyer is the first Foyer model of its kind designed to put in place an asset-based capabilities approach at its outset, built around education as the primary feature of the Foyer deal -  from the location of the service built on tertiary education college ground, to its delivery of an accredited Certificate in Independence award to young people residing in the Foyer, who are referred to as ‘students’ rather than ‘residents’. It is an exciting Foyer model for which I had the pleasure to work alongside the development team during a brief secondment in its set up phase, helping to share the early ethos from Advantaged Thinking while Jane Slowey and David Chesterton contributed to the strategic development of the Foyer Foundation network in Australia.

Now the research is finally out, it’s important that the international Foyer network, and those interested in asset-based approaches, seize on the findings that show why an ‘Advantaged Thinking’ approach is a no-brainer for investment. Indeed, a separate KPMG evaluation, released alongside the main research, helpfully concludes that the EFY Foyer model produces an additional $10 million in social benefits compared to traditional housing management services for young people over a 20 year timescale.  These cost savings are based on the Foyer’s positive impact on young people’s employment outcomes, increased educational attainment as a contributor to income, independence from supported housing need, health benefits from reduced emergency and hospital admissions, and avoided police expenditure through reduced offending rates. In terms of value, the financial benefits achieved from the EFY Foyer are almost double its running costs. That is significant. The fact that KPMG believes its figures are likely to ‘materially understate the true benefits to participants and Government’ from the wider cost savings and socio-economic impacts that Foyers bring, gives further assurance that the Foyer approach pays dividends for those seeking to invest in a solution that works for people, pounds and policy.

Foyers create positive outcomes that prevent against economic dependencies in welfare, housing, health, and criminal justice, precisely because the asset-focused nature of the EFY Foyer model invests in the enabling factors to achieve sustainable livelihood – namely, education, employment, housing and living skills, health and wellbeing, social connections and civic participation.  As the report illuminates, ‘Through each of these interconnected offers, EFY Foyer invests in structural and individual-level interventions to develop participant capabilities’. Importantly, the Foyer is focused not just on individual development but also in getting the system to work effectively around the individual. It is a twin focus very much in keeping with the balance of an effective asset-based approach between practice and influence that I have been lucky enough to witness in my role as an advisor for the Paul Hamlyn Foundation’s asset-focused ‘Youth Fund’.

The Australian report arrived in my inbox at the same time as I was reading a first snap shot on data outcomes from services gaining endorsement through the Foyer Federation’s FOR Youth Foyer accreditation scheme in the UK, affording an opportunity for some comparisons. While the origin of the data from the FOR Youth process offers a reliable measure of quality, the collection of UK data can not compare with the longitudinal focus in Australia or its overall rigor of collection and research insights. However, the outcomes do suggest an overall level of Foyer consistency in comparable areas, with the biggest difference in the stronger educational outcomes in Australia that reflect the EFY Foyer’s distinct focus on this, and the UK's tracking of higher progress rates in broader indicators such as personal development.

Before I go further, it is worth noting that the Australian research almost certainly under-reports its own outcomes, due to a number of factors: the period in which the research was undertaken, when EFY Foyer services were still mastering their approach; the inclusion of outcomes from those leaving the Foyer early, including 15% within the first 6 months; and due to some of the mechanics of how impacts were measured. All of which means we can feel certain that the impressive outcomes produced are a very realistic projection of what the EFY Foyer model can achieve.  Anyone seeking to accuse the Foyer of a ‘cherry picking’ myth to explain these impacts should note that 74% of young people entering the services in Australia had experiences in state custody or supported care, including 33% from out-of-home care, along with high figures suffering moderate to serious symptoms of mental distress accounting for 70% of entrants. These were young people who needed effective supports to navigate their transition which the Foyer environment was able to provide. 

So, what stands out?  An immediate highlight is the 85% noted in work or education a year after exit from the Foyer – proof of the sustained impact of the Foyer to connect young people with positive pathways. Compared to a more modest 59% figure on exit from the UK data, it’s an impressive impact. The 85% goes hand in hand with the fact that nearly all those leaving the Foyer felt they had progressed to housing where they felt safe, with 43% in their own tenancy on exit rising to 51% a year later, and a consequent decline in those experiencing homelessness and crisis accommodation down from 32% on entry to only 2% on exit from the Foyer.  Within the education and employment figure, the strongest performance is on the learning side, with 70% achieving or enrolling onto a higher qualification a year after exit from the Foyer. 

The strong educational outcomes are supported by 76% completing the Certificate in Independence programme specially designed for Foyer students, along with some fascinating insights that the Foyer deal, staff approach and quality of environment directly contributed to young people’s ability to achieve and sustain progress. For example, the report notes that ‘a considerable number of interviewees spoke about how Foyer staff connected them to resources, opportunities or pathways they had never considered’. In terms of the Deal, ‘Participants also highlighted gaining access to courses aligned with their goals through the ‘something for something’,a practice aligned with the EFY Foyer Deal.Through the ‘something for something’ EFY Foyer provides participants with resources supporting their goals (typically course fees and materials), and in exchange the participant organises a service for the foyer community aligned with their skills and interests.’  This is the first time that a study has picked up the Deal as a major contributor to Foyer impact, offering an important insight into its essential role in Foyer success. It is a feature that has been strongly invested in by the Australian Foyer network as a whole, and in my experience more consistently articulated as core to the Foyer offer than currently in UK services.  I was particularly struck by the phrase that some young people reported they ‘appreciated the freedom to clarify their career goals and ‘find your something’ while at Foyer’.  Opportunity to discover one's 'something' is a powerful dimension in the experience of the Foyer Deal and the informal learning offer wrapped around it.

On the employment side, three key Foyer ingredients influenced outcomes: sourcing education and training opportunities; developing employability skills through regular workshops, coaching and work experience; and facilitating direct connections with job agencies and employers.  Importantly, ‘Participants’ confidence in their capability to manage their career improved substantially while at EFY Foyer’, evidencing the ability of the Foyer to impact on work readiness which we have seen through UK Foyer programmes such as Working Assets.  The report highlights the tough environment to gain work post Foyer with 40% experiencing job shortages, and rightly concludes that ‘more active labour market interventions are needed to enable young people’s transitions into work’. This forms part of another major initiative in Australia led by BSL, the National Community of Practice for Transition to Work providers (www.ttwcommunity.com.au).

Outcomes in other areas are less dramatic but still signpost positive impact. Significantly, health outcomes highlight that the biggest improvements in mental health depended on length of stay, with those at the Foyer for between 1 to 2 years more likely to improve in this area, a powerful reminder of the message from the ‘What Happened Next’ report about the potential negatives from limiting young people to residencies under 8 months.  That report presciently warned that ‘It would be counter-productive if … funding pushed foyers to provide only short-term accommodation of less than 8-12 months’. During a period when length of stay has sometimes been under threat from commissioning pressures, this is useful evidence to protect time for young people’s transition. Median length of stay at the EFY Foyer is reported as 1.21 years or 63 weeks (higher than the currently rising UK average of 57 weeks). Health impacts were also age dependent, with those aged 21 or older more likely to report improved health outcomes having entered in worse health than those younger.

There is additional learning from impacts on financial capability, social connection and civic participation, where positive outcomes achieved in the EFY Foyer are reported to decline beyond exit.  This reflects some of the real challenges young people face in their experience of transitioning out from a supportive community with rental subsidy at the Foyer, suggesting the need for targeting more exit support options through alumni groups, digital connection solutions and transitions-focused staff posts.

The overwhelming positive from the report is that longitudinal evidence clearly shows us that early integrated investment, exemplified through the Foyer model, supports sustained outcomes. Since the EFY Foyer offers a concrete example of an asset-based approach, the outcomes also demonstrate the importance of investing smartly in the individual and social capabilities to achieve sustainable livelihood. A positive investment is more likely to enable a positive outcome. For the 84% enjoying education and work in a safe housing option, it is a powerful reality that funders and decision makers should welcome.

(Starting a Future that Means Something to You can be accessed at: www.bsl.org.au/research/browse-publications/starting-a-future-that-means-something-to-you/)