Advancing smoother transitions for those leaving residential out-of-home care

Young people transitioning from residential out-of-home care (those who are supervised by paid rostered staff) tend to have more challenging life experiences and outcomes than other care-leavers.

This may be because they were subjected to particularly severe forms of abuse or neglect prior to entering care, and/or reflect experiences of multiple placements and limited supportive relationships within the OOHC system. Many become homeless, have poor mental health, or end up in youth justice custody.

The recent introduction of programs extending OOHC to 21 years in states such as Victoria and Western Australia, including a guaranteed housing allowance, offers some potential for improving the outcomes for all care-leavers.

Yet extended care programs have some limitations for those leaving residential care compared to those departing foster or kinship care, in that they don't allow them to remain in their existing placement. Rather, they're assisted to identify alternative suitable housing.

A UK study offered two explanations for this exclusion. One was the prohibitive cost of continuing residential care placements beyond 18 years, which is far more expensive than foster or kinship care.

This is also the case in Australia, although it's arguable that the price of continuing residential care may be more cost-effective than funding crisis support services in housing, mental health and criminal justice for the same cohort.

The second stated concern is that it would be inappropriate for young adults to inhabit the same residence as younger children, even though many young people staying put from 18-21 years in foster care or kinship care placements cohabit with younger children.

Both these arguments have been contested by British child welfare campaigners.

Regardless, the UK government has trialled the Staying Close Scheme, whereby youth transitioning from residential care are assisted by a team of support workers to live near their former homes in order to maintain existing positive relationships with their former carers or other support networks.

A recently published evaluation of this scheme reported some positive outcomes, but also some challenges.

The former included improved independent living skills, less risk-taking behaviour, greater housing stability, enhanced participation in education, employment, and social relationships, and increased wellbeing. But there were also some problems, including transiency of support workers, poor relationships with housemates, and being unable to live in their preferred location.

Overall, the evaluators concluded that the scheme was cost-effective, and resulted in significant savings compared with service delivery costs.

So what are the implications of Staying Close for extended care programs in Australia?

It's generally accepted that care-leavers do better when they experience gradual transitions from care, retain the ongoing support of responsible adults, including both professional workers and unpaid community connections, and are able to access stable and affordable housing.

We're not convinced – irrespective of cost – that it meets the best interests of young people to be obliged to move out of residential care placements at the age of 18 years, particularly in those cases where they feel emotionally secure and supported by relationships with consistent caregivers who are responsive to their needs.

NSW academic Judy Cashmore has rightly highlighted the importance of ‘felt security’ for a young person in a placement, which extends beyond merely remaining in an apparently stable placement, to a feeling of belonging based on supportive relationships with caregivers.

However, if this preferred program option is not available in the current policy context, we would recommend at the very least that Australian extended care programs trial a local variant of the Staying Close program. Such a pilot program should prioritise the following approach:

• Accommodation needs to be organised within the same or adjoining suburbs as the residential care homes.
• Once the young people turn 17 years old, they should be engaged in a new activity group wherein they spend time with the other 17-year-olds to begin getting to know each other and building social relationships. This process would enable appropriate matching to be undertaken alongside planning the location of where they will live, so that the move at 18 years does not come as a sudden shock.
• The young person should be assisted to maintain regular contact with their former residential care home – either by including them in weekly house activities, inviting them over for dinner (with staff picking them up or dropping them off if needed so that distance isn't problematic), or including them in significant events such as the birthdays of residents still in the house, staff birthdays, and Christmas parties – so that the contact is viewed as important and ongoing.
• Establishment of a support house so that young people could be trained to develop their independent living skills. This house could also provide some respite for housemate relationships that are becoming strained and someone needs time away.
• Ongoing and regular contact with consistent support workers is necessary. According to Staying Close, it provided about 10 hours per week of social work and housing support. There may additionally be a need for the young people to have a specified number of hours of contact with their former house staff via phone, or face to face, or activity-based contact.
• Ensuring appropriate support is given by placement coordinators to reduce pressure to place young people together inappropriately.

There are additional practical challenges to be addressed, such as who would be responsible for identifying and resourcing suitable properties, whether young people would contribute a certain percentage of their living costs, and how long they would be able to stay close.

It does seem, though, that the introduction of an effective Staying Close program could enable our most vulnerable groups of care-leavers to enjoy greater life opportunities than is currently the case.