Acknowledgements.
On behalf of the Office for Youth within the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the Interdepartmental Steering Committee for this project, and Colmar Brunton Social Research, we would like to say thank you to the participants in this study for their generous contributions.
It is important to note that this project was qualitative in nature, and as such the findings reflect the views and perceptions of participants.
Contents.
1. Executive summary 1
1.1. Summary of key findings 2
1.2. Overall conclusions and recommendations 3
1.3. Recommendations for short-term action 4
1.4. Recommendations regarding policy intent of the program 6
1.5. Recommendations regarding service delivery model 8
1.6. Recommendations regarding targeting of the program 10
2. Introduction 15
2.1. Background 15
2.1.1. The policy and research context 15
2.1.2. Program history 16
2.1.3. Summary of eligibility criteria 18
2.2. Research objectives 19
2.3. Methodology 19
2.3.1. Sample specifications 20
2.3.2. Young people and this research study 21
2.4. Definitions 22
3. Key findings 24
3.1. Profile of TILA recipients 24
3.2. TILA’s positioning in the sector 27
3.2.1. Awareness and understanding of TILA 27
3.2.2. What does TILA stand for? 28
3.3. TILA pathways 28
3.3.1. TILA and the formal pathway 28
3.3.2. Implications of State and Territory arrangements for TILA 33
3.3.3. The impact of the 24 month eligibility window 33
3.3.4. Barriers to accessing TILA via the formal pathway 35
3.3.5. TILA and the informal pathway 37
3.3.6. A note about kinship care 37
3.3.7. A note about juvenile justice 39
3.3.8. Referrals through Centrelink and Job Services Australia service providers 40
3.4. Strengths of the TILA program 46
3.4.1. It makes a difference to young people’s lives 46
3.4.2. TILA is a tool for initiating and building engagement 47
3.4.3. TILA is flexible 47
3.5. Weaknesses of the TILA program 48
3.5.1. The policy intent and eligibility criteria are unclear 48
3.5.2. Poor communication of program changes 53
3.5.3. The application process is cumbersome and time-consuming 54
3.5.4. Timeframe for payment does not meet the needs of recipients 56
3.5.5. Conflicting assessments of the way that funds can be used 57
3.5.6. Verification of expenditure and reimbursement seems unnecessarily complex and time consuming 59
3.6. Other considerations 60
3.6.1. Uses of TILA funding 60
3.6.2. Local versus centralised administration of the program 61
3.6.3. Promotion of the program 62
3.6.4. TILA information materials and supporting documentation 62
3.6.5. Communication with SYFS 63
3.6.6. Challenges of communicating to the sector 64
3.7. Tensions within TILA 65
3.7.1. Readiness versus entitlement 66
3.7.2. Where the young person is coming from versus where they are headed 68
3.7.3. A prevention and early intervention versus crisis driven payment 68
4. Possible directions for TILA in the future 70
4.1. What outcomes does the program seek? 70
5. Conclusions and recommendations 73
5.1. Overall conclusions and recommendations 73
5.2. Recommendations for short-term action 74
5.3. Conclusions and recommendations regarding policy intent of the program 77
5.4. Conclusions and recommendations regarding service delivery model 78
5.5. Conclusions and recommendations regarding targeting of the program 81
Bibliography 86
Appendix A: TILA Guidelines 88
Appendix B: List of participating stakeholders 99
Index of Figures
Figure 1: TILA Approvals by care type, 2003/04 - 2010/11 24
Figure 2: Proportion of TILA Approvals by care type, 2003/04 to 2010/11 25
Figure 3: Average age of TILA recipients, 2003/04 - 2010/11 25
Figure 4: Number of TILA recipients (formal care exits) aged 15-17, as a proportion of all 15-17 year old exits from formal care (by jurisdiction), 2003/04 - 2010/11 26
Figure 5: TILA Recipients by Cultural Background, 2003/04 - 2010/11 27
1. Executive summary
This report presents the findings of an evaluation of the Transition to Independent Living Allowance (TILA). Colmar Brunton Social Research was commissioned to conduct the evaluation by the Office for Youth within the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR). The project took place between March and June 2011, with fieldwork being conducted during late March, April and May 2011.
With the current contractual arrangements coming to an end, and given that a range of issues had been identified with the program, the Office for Youth considered it timely to review TILA to assist in determining future directions for the program. A review of the increase in funds directed to TILA was also highlighted as an activity in the first three year action plan under the Council of Australian Government’s (COAG) endorsed National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 (the National Framework), a priority of which is improving support for young people leaving care. The National Framework intersects with broader policy interest in this area. For example, The Road Home, the 2008 White Paper on homelessness, also recognises that poor transitions from out of home care are major contributors to homelessness[1] and as such proposes a policy of “no exits into homelessness” from institutional care, with the priority target group being young people leaving child protection (as well as juvenile justice systems)[2].
The evaluation was based on a survey of literature as well as 118 consultation sessions with key stakeholders (these included one-on-one interviews, small group discussions and larger focus group type sessions, depending on the interest and availability of relevant staff within each agency or organisation), including a broad range of referring organisations for the program; Commonwealth, State and Territory Government representatives; peak bodies for young children in care as well in homelessness and housing; case workers; and Child Guardians and Children’s’ Commissioners. The final sample included those working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth, young people with a disability, young parents and young people in the juvenile justice system. We also reviewed administrative data supplied by both DEEWR and Southern Youth Family Services (SYFS, who have solely administered the program under contract since late 2007). A full list of participating agencies and non-government organisations is provided at Appendix B.
TILA has an interesting program history. It is a capped program that is currently funded to $3.8 million a year, and provides one off payments of up to $1500 to eligible young people aged from 15 to 25 years to help defray the upfront costs associated with accessing education, employment and accommodation when making the transition from care arrangements to independent living. Uniquely among Commonwealth payments, it is administered by an NGO (SYFS). When the program was first implemented in 2003, it was explicitly targeted at young people exiting statutory (or ‘formal’ care). However, after a review in 2004, the eligibility criteria were broadened to include those with similarly challenging life pathways but where there was no care and protection order in place. In the TILA Guidelines this is referred to as ‘informal’ care. Informal care has proved to be a difficult concept to define, leading to series of challenges for the program discussed further below.
1.1. Summary of key findings
Although TILA is a comparatively small program, it is perceived to be very important in the sectors in which it operates, and is strongly felt to be making a positive contribution to supporting successful transitions into long term accommodation (an important precursor to more positive life outcomes for young people) as well as (less frequently) supporting young people to assert their agency in a positive manner even if not explicitly linked to housing (for example, in purchasing a car, tools or a laptop so that employment and education outcomes can be pursued). Indeed, case workers speak extremely positively about the impact of the program and see it as a valuable and unique resource in this space.
Our findings suggest that the TILA payment plays a number of different roles depending on whether it is being accessed via the formal or the informal pathway.
In the context of the formal pathway, TILA is supplementing State and Territory leaving and aftercare funding. As there is significant variability across the jurisdictions in terms of available funding, TILA is playing this role to a greater or lesser extent. In some jurisdictions, TILA is being used to offset some of the costs associated with leaving care. In comparison with Departmental funding, it is perceived as a flexible payment that is very helpful in supporting unanticipated post exit events (both positive and negative) and that works with the “challenges and chaos of the transition process”.
In the context of the informal pathway, it is basically the only substantive payment available to support housing outcomes and is playing a very important role in the purchase of housing establishment items for this group.
Despite operating within a messy, fragmented and complex environment the program has a number of important strengths.
It is making a difference to the lives of young people in that it seems to be contributing in a material sense in supporting successful transitions to long term accommodation. It also is assisting in intangible ways, for example, in helping make a house feel like a home and supporting the development of a positive identity and sense of control and responsibility. Both these material and intangible contributions contribute to stability (an important precursor of positive life outcomes).
It is a useful tool for initiating and building engagement of young people with services and case workers.
It is flexible enough to be accessed by young people (and the case workers who are needed to complete and lodge the applications) in a multitude of contexts and via many touch-points (from Centrelink to shelters to aftercare services to transitional housing providers). This is particularly important given the critical shortage of appropriate and affordable housing for young people because as our findings suggest, a housing outcome can come from anywhere.
However, the program also has significant weaknesses.
Broadening the eligibility for the program from the clearly defined and discrete cohort of statutory care leavers to include the poorly defined and very large cohort of ‘informal care’ leavers has clearly shifted the program away from its original policy intent, with the proportion of payments going to statutory care leavers down to 17% in 2010. As such, TILA has effectively morphed from being a payment to support transition from formal care to a payment to support transition from informal care. This has adverse implications for expectations regarding any role it may play in the implementation of the National Framework and/or the policy goal of no exits from statutory care into homelessness.
Further, prior to the broadening of eligibility to informal care leavers, the total potential demand for the program, even in a 100% uptake scenario, used to roughly match the availability of funds (c. 2400 exits/payments). However, it is very likely that potential demand for the program now significantly outstrips supply and this is not a sustainable situation. It is important to note that the two main groups originally suggested for inclusion in TILA eligibility criteria by the Westwood Spice recommendations (that is, those on dual orders exiting juvenile detention and those in state supported but unfunded kinship care) seem to be, among those currently accessing the payment via the informal pathway, significantly less likely to be aware of and/or utilising the payment. In other words, the expansion of eligibility criteria for the program has not only accompanied a significant move away from the original intention of the program, but also failed to capture, to any great extent, the two groups for whom the broadening of criteria was intended. Just who is receiving this payment is hard to ascertain, and whether it is those who are ‘most in need’ remains an open question.
Even though some find it unproblematic, from an administrative perspective, the application and approval processes - as well as verification of expenditure - can be frustrating and time-consuming for both referring organisations and the administrator, and “TILA fatigue” is impacting on uptake in some areas. This is strongly linked to the fact that eligibility criteria, rather than providing clear and transparent direction regarding who can access the program, are confusing, unclear, inconsistent, poorly captured in support materials and seemingly being used as a tool for the ad hoc control of demand.
Concern about exceeding the capped budget for the program also seems (understandably) to be acting as a disincentive to promote the program and at least in part due to this awareness is patchy in some areas and there is little to no awareness of it in others (among those who are theoretically eligible to access it). In the absence of effectively communicated evidence to the contrary, ‘Chinese whispers’ are circulating as to who is and who is not eligible to access the program and under what terms. This creates inequity in that access to the program seemingly depends on whether a young person happens to make contact with someone who a) knows about the program and b) is able to help them access it. This is particularly the case for groups such as those exiting juvenile detention and state supported (but unfunded) kinship care.
Poor consultation between DEEWR and the sector, as well as with the administrator, has exacerbated these issues. Despite appreciation of what TILA can achieve, in some areas, particularly among those dealing with young people with a formal care experience, there is a general air of frustration and negativity surrounding the program. This program asks for a significant contribution of time and effort from busy case workers for no reward other than the satisfaction of feeling that they have helped to make a difference to the life of a young person. As such, it is vitally important that case workers feel like a valued stakeholder in the process, and that their professional judgements and experience are acknowledged and appreciated.
1.2. Overall conclusions and recommendations
The Transition to Independent Living Allowance presents a policy making conundrum.
Despite the strengths of the program in its current form, and the fact that the administrator is doing the best they can with the resources at their disposal, the ‘inescapable truth’ confronting TILA at this point is the clear mismatch between supply and demand, and the flow through effects that this has on eligibility criteria and promotion of the program. Obviously this is not a sustainable situation for a Commonwealth Government payment.