reducing youth homelessness in ottawa: needs survey and action plan

REDUCING YOUTHHOMELESSNESS INOTTAWA:NEEDS SURVEY ANDACTION PLANNovember 27, 2002byMark Totten and Judy PerleyYouth Services Bureau of OttawaFunded by:Provincial One Time Innovative Homelessness Initiatives FundingThrough the City of Ottawa

AcknowledgementsThis report could not have been possible without the guidance, expertise and time of theSteering Committee and all other people involved in the planning, design, implementation andparticipation of the surveys, and review of the final report. We would like to thank the followingindividuals: Rob Boyd, Robin Germain, National Capital Region YMCA-YWCA; Trudy Sutton,Housing Help; Colleen Shirley, Sister Maco Cassetta, Youville Center; Nancy MacNider, St.Mary’s Home; Jacquie Woodward, Lori Smith, Jim Butler, Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa;Donna Pettey, Dwane Unruh, Canadian Mental Health Association; Bill Rooney, KatharineRobertson-Palmer, City of Ottawa, Homelessness Initiatives Team; June St. Pierre, LindaCanzanella (Blanchard), HRDC; Bruce Bursey, Pink Triangle Services; Sunny Marriner, SexualAssault Support Centre; Tricia Chilton, Joanne Moore, Lynda Lowe, Kirstie Stenson, GarethPark, Mary Wehrle,Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa.Finally, and most importantly, we are grateful for the time and insights shared with us bythe many youth who participated in the surveys and focus groups. Your tenacity and survivalskills, in the face of tremendous adversity, are an inspiration to us all.Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Table of Contents1. Executive Summary………………………………………………… page 32. Introduction………………………………………………………… page 53. Project Stages………………………………………………………. page 6A) Start up………………………………………………………….. page 6i) Steering Committee Development…………………………….. page 6ii) Mandate and Goals…………………………………………… page 6iii) Target Population…………………………………………….. page 7B) Needs Assessment Activities……………………………………. page 9i) Agency Survey………………………………………………… page 9ii) Youth Housing Group Consultations…………………………. page 11iii) Youth Surveys……………………………………………….. page 12Figure 1 Socio Demographic Profiles of Respondents……… page 15Table 1 Socio Demographic Issues by Gender……………… page 16Table 2 Housing Need by Gender …………………………… page 17Service Provider Consultations……………………………… page 18C) Vision Development…………………………………………….. page 22i) Models of Practice……………………………………. page 24ii) Does Our Data Support Best Practice………………… page 25D) Implementation Plan…………………………………………… page 26Recommendations to Reduce Youth Homelessness in Ottawa…. page 264. Conclusion………………………………………………………….. page 275. References………………………………………………………….. page 296. AppendicesA) Invitation to Participate…………………………………………. page 31B) Agency Survey………………………………………………….. page 32C) Housing Group Consultation …………..………………………. page 35D) Youth Housing Needs Survey………………………………….. page 38E) Service Provider Consultation………………………………….. page 43F) Agency Contacts………………………………………………… page 45G) Youth Housing Group Consultation Data………………………. page 46H) Youth Survey Comments……………………………………….. page 53I) Service Provider Working Group Data………………………….. page 56J) Notes From Individual Service Provider Interviews…………….. page 67K) Interviews With School Guidance Counsellors ………………… page 72Interview with Multicultural Liaison Officers………………….. page 83L) Project Vision :A Transitional Housing Program for Ottawa Youth(McEwen Apartments)………………………………………….. page 85Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn October of 2000, the City of Ottawa (formerly the Regional Municipality ofOttawa-Carleton) issued a call for proposals under the Homelessness Initiatives FundingProgram. Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa submitted a “Vision Development andImplementation Planning to Prevent Youth Homelessness” Proposal and was awarded OneTime Innovative funding commencing in March of 2001.The submission was developed as a result of shared concern by a collectiveof youth agency representatives about the growing crisis of youth homelessness. The goalof the proposal was to create a coordinated strategic vision and implementation plan toaddress youth homelessness in Ottawa for the next five years.The “Vision” Project was organized into four stages of activities: Start-Up, NeedsAssessment, Vision Development and Implementation. Start-Up involved the recruitmentof a Steering Committee and refining the mandate and goals for the project. Keyindividuals representing community organizations with an interest in youth housing issueswere invited to join the Youth Housing Development Team. This Team formed the steeringcommittee of the “Vision “ Project and served to guide and inform its goals and activities.A needs assessment was undertaken through the combination of an agency survey, a seriesof youth group consultations, the distribution of youth surveys and a number of serviceprovider consultations.The agency survey was distributed broadly in an effort to try and establish anaccurate picture of the current need. Response to the survey was limited. Twenty-four outof forty-nine programs responded. Seventeen of those twenty-four provided some of theinformation requested. Given the nature of the target population, limitations of informationsystems, and gaps in available data, we were unable to establish the total number of youthwho are homeless or at risk of being homeless. What we do know is that in August of 2001the Central Housing Registry had 377 individuals aged 16 to 20 as primary applicants onthe waitlist for subsidized housing. This waitlist alone reflects a demand far in excess ofcurrent availability. Emergency shelters report increasing need, in addition to longer andmore frequent stays of homeless individuals. Without the creation of additional housingand support options, this trend is likely to continue.Following the agency survey, youth were engaged in a number of groupconsultations and surveys. Of the 187 youth surveys that were filled out, 21 were missingkey socio-demographic information so were excluded from the calculations. The averageage of the remaining 166 youth was 18.5 years, reflecting a gender breakdown of 95females, 70 males, and one transgender youth. One hundred and thirty-two wereheterosexual while the remainder identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or questioning(GLBTQ) their orientation. Roughly two-thirds of these young people were receivinggovernmental financial support or had no income, and just over three-quarters were inschool or working. Most were in unstable housing situations: shelters, some roominghouses, on the street, or with friends. Eighty-five reported mental health, substance abuse,offending, parenting, or disability issues, which would make independent living difficultwithout counselling support. Less than one-half said that conflicts with landlords or othertenants had caused the breakdown of their last housing arrangement. One hundred and3Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

thirty-eight participants reported that they would require some support to maintain theirnext independent living arrangement. One-half said they would prefer living on their own,while almost all other youth reported that they preferred sharing an apartment or house.Following completion of the youth focus groups and surveys, an agencyconsultation was organized to capture the observations and recommendations of serviceproviders. In addition to this group consultation, key professionals in the community werecontacted for specific information to be used during the Vision Development stage of theproject.After reviewing all the data, it was obvious that there is no “quick fix, one size fitsall” solution to the youth housing crisis in Ottawa. Our assessment confirmed that housingneeds vary within and between sub groupings of youth. Youth needs are complex andmulti-faceted. The need for safe, affordable housing options and the support required tosustain them, continues to exceed the current supply. In order to effectively address theyouth homelessness issue in this community, we need to develop an enhanced continuumof housing and supports options for youth that includes timely prevention and earlyintervention strategiesAlthough the original intent of the “Vision” Project was to have a concreteimplementation plan with established working groups and committed resources in place,this was not accomplished within the given timeframe. More work needs to be done toengage private sector partners, broaden committee representation and secure the necessaryresources to develop a more comprehensive continuum of services. However, significantprogress has been made. A community-based networking and planning process is in placeand there is a commitment on the part of members to continue to work towards thedevelopment of a more definitive plan to address youth homelessness. The needs and targetpopulation are more clearly defined and gaps in services more fully identified.The “Vision” Project also generated a set of recommendations to guide an enhancedYouth Housing Committee. The committee commenced re-convening in early October of2002. The first goal for this committee is to better represent the needs of minority andphysically and developmentally challenged youth. The committee then plans to take a moredetailed look at other current housing models with a view to assessing their potentialapplication here in Ottawa. The greatest challenge will be engaging the private and publicsector in order to create an expanded continuum of housing and support services for youthin Ottawa. Tackling the shortage of both housing stock and support services will require acollaborative approach. The McEwen Project, a new 22 unit transitional apartment buildingfor youth set to open in 2003, is a concrete example of successful network collaboration.4Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

2. INTRODUCTIONThe need for affordable youth housing is supported by statistics from HousingHelp, the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, the YMCA/YWCA, the Salvation Army’sYoung Men’s Shelter, Youth Services Bureau’s Young Women’s Emergency Shelter,waiting lists for the YSB Housing Program, and academic research. In 2001, over fourteenthousand households were on the Ottawa Social Housing Registry waiting an average offive to eight years or longer for accommodation. The vacancy rate stood at 0.8%, with theaverage monthly rent at $762 for a one bedroom. Given the lack of new rentalaccommodation being built, the situation is expected to remain critical for at least the nextfive years or longer. Those with the lowest incomes have the fewest choices. High-riskyouth are particularly vulnerable in this market. With the lack of affordable shelter, theyare forced into situations that are unsafe and unsuitable.In the fall of 2000, Youth Services Bureau responded to the City of Ottawa’s Requestfor Proposals. YSB proposed taking the lead in coordinating an inter-sectoral planningprocess to create a shared community vision and to develop a collaborative plan forinnovative solutions to address youth homelessness. The proposal was titled “VisionDevelopment and Implementation Planning to Prevent Youth Homelessness”. The visionbehind the original proposal focussed on assisting youth to move from streets and sheltersto longer-term accommodation, and enhancing support services to youth at risk ofhomelessness. The project identified clusters or sub-groups of the youth population whohave special needs with respect to housing and transition to independence. These includeyouth with children; youth raised within the child welfare system; youth with psycho-socialand mental health issues; Aboriginals; Francophones; newcomers to Canada; youth withdisabilities; and, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth. Many of theseyouth experience poverty, eviction, mental health instability and/or addictions.5Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

3. PROJECT STAGESa. Start Upi) Steering Committee DevelopmentIn March 2001, Youth Services Bureau was awarded funding for this visioningexercise and as a first step broadly distributed an invitation (appendix A) to participate inthe project. Immediately following this notice, a steering committee, the Youth HousingDevelopment Team (YHDT) was established. This group involved representatives oforganizations with an interest in youth and youth housing. A number of agencies had beenconsulted and provided letters of support for the original “Vision” proposal. These agencieswere invited to sit on the Youth Housing Development Team. In addition, a youthrepresentative (a YSB Housing tenant) was also invited to join the committee. Attemptswere made to secure participation on the committee from groups representing visibleminorities. Invitations were declined due to insufficient resources within these agencies ordeference to existing committee members (for example, OCISO indicated Housing Helpcould represent their needs).It was hoped that the lack of diversity on the committee could be offset throughtargeted consultation, youth surveys and focus groups. It was also recommended thatenhanced youth input be achieved through the focus consultation process versus increasedrepresentation on the committee. There was consensus that private sector engagement bepostponed until later on in the process, when components of the plan were more clearlydefined.The YHDT membership included individuals from Housing Help, CanadianMental Health Association (CMHA), Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (CASO), theYoung Single Parent Support Network (YSPSN), the City of Ottawa Homeless InitiativesTeam, HRDC Federal Youth Initiatives and the GLBTQ Network. In addition to YSB’sDirector of Housing, the committee included a YSB Board member. The network ofagencies serving Aboriginal and Inuit youth were invited to join the committee butdeclined. They are currently engaged in planning their own youth housing initiative.ii) Mandate and GoalsThe primary objective of the project was to develop a coordinated approach toreducing youth homelessness in Ottawa. The first task for the committee was to refine themandate and goals.Additional goals established by the Committee were to:Clearly define target populationDevelop a comprehensive inventory of current housing options for youthGather existing data to accurately establish the current needReview current data and trends (previous 3-5 years) and project needs over thenext 5 years6Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Assist in the organization and facilitation of focus groups for both youth andservice provider stakeholdersReview local, provincial, federal and international youth housing models andrecommend relevancy and feasibility in our community.In addition to the stated goals of the project the committee also wanted to remaincurrent on opportunities to expand youth housing /services in order to be able to “move” onfunding options as they arose. To this end both Bill Rooney and Katharine Robertson-Palmer (City of Ottawa) and June St. Pierre (HRDC) agreed to keep the committeeinformed of any allocations being released for this purpose. These updates became aregular item on the Youth Housing Development Team agenda. A number of potentialcollaborative housing initiatives were explored based on these updates. The McEwenTransitional Housing Project is the result of capitalizing on one such opportunity.Information on the McEwen Project can be found in Appendix L of this report.Key changes from original plan:One facet of the implementation plan was the identification of funding sources forfinancing additional housing options. It was not feasible to engage private sector partners tooffset or leverage public sector funding during the term of the project. This remains a keyissue to be addressed in the next phase of planning for the committee. The original plancalled for a number of working groups to investigate different housing models and commitresources to implement pieces of the plan. As previously mentioned we do not yet have adefinitive plan to address the youth homelessness issue in Ottawa. We have started anetworking and planning process; we have identified key gaps in services; and we have thefoundation of a committee in place that is committed to working on these issues. We didnot effectively engage the network of agencies providing services to physically anddevelopmentally challenged youth; however, we have included one accessible ground floorunit in the McEwen building as a step towards addressing the needs of this population.iii) Target PopulationBased on the collective experience of members of the committee and confirmedthrough the needs assessment process, the defined target population for the project includedthe following youth clusters: Those living at home who are in serious conflict with family and at risk of leavingwith no viable housing:Many of these youth reside outside the central core, often in the suburbs of theamalgamated city. While it was impossible to determine the actual statistics, serviceproviders and school personnel report there is a growing number. Given the currentlevel of services and the lack of appropriate housing options within their owncommunities many youth have no choice but to migrate to a more central location inorder to find accommodation and needed services. This is often destabilizing and cannegatively impact a youth’s ability to remain engaged at school. Leaving one’scommunity can also prove detrimental to maintaining employment and social networks.Decentralized housing options minimize instability and isolation.7Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Those living within the child welfare system:34 Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa youth accessed YSB’s Young Women’sEmergency Shelter services for a total of 437 days in 2001 while 32 male wards wereaccommodated at the Salvation Army’s 4 th floor for a total of 1010 days last year. InApril 2002 there were 12 CASO youth whose whereabouts were unknown or who wererefusing to reside in approved settings. The Supported Independent Living Programprovides services to approximately 80 youth between the ages of sixteen and twentyoneon a monthly basis. The program served 135 different youth in the 2001/2002fiscal year. Additional support and affordable housing would greatly assist these youthin their transition from child welfare services to independent adulthood. Youth currently homeless, unstably or inappropriately housed:In 2001, 640 youth accessed shelters (Salvation Army Young Men’s Shelter, YSBYoung Women’s Shelter, and the Y’s Emergency Housing Program). In the YoungMen’s Emergency Shelter, 269 youth aged 16 to 24 accessed services during 2001,accounting for an 85% occupancy rate. YSB’s Young Women’s Emergency Shelterserved 194 females in 2001, with an occupancy rate of 102%. The average length ofstay was 24.5 days, reflecting a 7.5 day increase over 2000 when the average stay was18 days. Housing Help reported 236 youth aged 16 to 25 years accessing their programin 2001 (75% female). YSB’s Evelyn Horne Program (developed to serve youngwomen who were homeless or unsuitably housed) accommodated 22 females in 2001,with an occupancy rate of 82%. The YMCA-YWCA reported 155 youth aged 16 to 24who accessed emergency housing over this past year. GLBTQ:Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth are a high need subgroup ofthe homeless population. GLBTQ youth have a higher propensity to leave the familyhome early as part of their coming-out process. They report feeling unsafe in someshelters and most rooming houses (particularly gay and transgender youth) due tohomophobic atmospheres within many of these settings. This population is at high riskof depression, suicide, involvement in the sex trade and substance use. The recentlyreleased Wellness Survey indicates that 62% of youth respondents reported depressionas an issue while 36% reported feeling suicidal. Adolescent parents with young children:The City of Ottawa Health Department reports that there are approximately 350 birthsto teen parents each year in Ottawa. In 2001, St. Mary’s housed 60 teen mothers, with8 young mothers needing to be housed in hotel rooms following their stay in theprogram. Staff report that clients are regularly discharged to family shelters due to thelack of appropriate housing options. Emily Murphy Non-profit Housing for singleparents had only two vacancies last year. Youville Centre reported that of 210 graduatealumni and 48 active cases in 2001, 100 young mothers required support to securehousing and 25 required assistance to maintain their housing (eviction prevention). TheYoung Single Parent Support Network estimates 20 to 30 new families annually headedby adolescents who are inappropriately housed. Without appropriate housing they are at8Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

isk of losing custody of their children. Without stable housing they are less able to takeadvantage of the support programs in place through services such as the Young/SingleParent Support Network. Rooming houses and emergency shelters are inappropriate forthese families. They often require support to adapt to the dual role of parenting andtransition to independent living. Homeless youth with mental health issues and addictions issues:(Some of these youth may be parents, GLBT or from the child welfare system.) Theyoften struggle to maintain independence and stable housing. Affordability is always anissue. Many of these youth require transitional support to develop skills for living –some of them require ongoing support to manage their lives. Youth leaving Correctional Facilities without appropriate housing in place:Many face rejection from family or neighbourhood due to their offending behavior,while for others a return to their own community presents a higher risk for reoffending.Many of these youth have limited experience with independent living andrequire a transitional period of enhanced support to achieve successful communityreintegration. John Howard Society estimates that of the approximately 200 youthaged 16 to 20 who are released from custody, 50 to 65 are in need of housing. Minority and First Nations Youth:These youth are over-represented in statistics on incarceration, addictions andhomelessness. In addition, a number of culturally diverse youth are disenfranchised atan early age as a result of being refugees, losing an immigration sponsor orintergenerational conflict. Youth who are physically or developmentally challenged:These youth face few supported independent housing choices. Given the scarcity ofappropriate, affordable accommodation, many remain in unstable, unsafe situations.b. Needs Assessment Activitiesi) Agency SurveyPurposeThe first needs assessment activity undertaken by the Youth Housing DevelopmentTeam was the development of an agency survey (Appendix B). The purpose of this surveywas to establish an accurate picture of the current youth housing need. Information fromthis survey and subsequent consultation on trends was aimed at determining a projection ofneeds over the next five years. The survey also sought demographic data on the targetpopulation. In addition, agencies were asked to provide information on anyhousing/support program they offered in order to create a more comprehensive inventory ofcurrent options available to youth. Finally, the survey solicited interest to participate in the9Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Vision project. This information helped inform the process of organizing youthconsultations and the youth survey distribution.Agency Survey Distribution List:Salvation Army, Young Men’s Shelter; National Capital Region YMCA/YWCA,Shenkman Residence; St. Mary’s Home; Operation Go Home; Cornerstone Housing forWomen; Shepherds of Good Hope Outreach; Union Mission; Action-Housing; CentretownCitizens Ottawa Corporation; Co-operative Housing Association of Eastern Ontario; EmilyMurphy Non Profit Housing Corporation; Gignul Non-Profit Housing Corporation; InuitNon-Profit Housing Corporation; Nepean Housing Corporation; Options Bytown-Nonprofit Housing Corporation; The Registry: Ottawa-Carleton Social Housing Registry;Salus; Assertive Community Treatment Team (ACTT) of Ottawa-Carleton; CanadianMental Health Association of Ottawa-Carleton Branch; Housing Help; John HowardSociety of Ottawa; Pinganodin Lodge Outreach; The Elizabeth Fry Society of Ottawa;Carlington Community & Health Services; Centretown Community Health Centre;Community Resource Centre of Goulbourn, Kanata & W. Carleton; Cumberland TownshipCommunity Resource Centre; Gloucester Centre for Community Resources, North; SouthLowertown Community Resource Centre; Nepean Community Resource Centre; MilitaryFamily Resource Centre of the National Capital Region; Overbrook-Forbes CommunityServices; Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services; Sandy Hill CommunityHealth Centre; Somerset West Community Health Centre; South-East Ottawa Centre for aHealthy Community; Vanier Community Service Centre; Daybreak Non-Profit ShelterCorporation; Roberts/ Smart Center; City Living; CHEO; Ottawa Hospital; GeneralHospital; Queensway-Carleton Hospital; Wabano Centre for Aboriginal Health; GloucesterNon-Profit Housing Corporation, Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa, Youville Centre, St.Mary’s Home, Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa.FindingsOut of the forty-nine surveys distributed, twenty-four programs responded. Seventeencompleted part or all of the survey, while seven indicated they could not report on anyaspect of the survey. Many agencies did not respond to our request. The survey processresulted in the following observations: The current system does not allow for the systematic counting of youth that arehomeless or at risk of being homeless. The Homeless Individual and Family Information System (HIFIS), a pilot projectoriginally funded through CMHC to create a database for shelter services, is nowbeing developed and promoted by HRDC. HIFIS is not yet producing aggregatedata. The University of Ottawa Centre for Research on Community Services (CRCS) isgathering data only on those programs funded under Homeless Initiatives funding. There is not an established system for cross-referencing between agencies todetermine overlap and establish unique client numbers due to confidentiality. It isimpossible to determine if there is duplication between YSB’s 140 waitlist clients,the 377 on the Central Registry (in August 2001 the Central Registry reported 377youth aged 16 – 21 years as primary applicants for subsidized housing) and the 4310Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

sixteen to seventeen year olds (10 male, 33 female) reported by Nepean HousingCorporation.This population is transient, constantly moving from place to place. Currentwaitlist practices do not serve them well. Many youth do not appear on any currentwaitlists. They are the “invisible homeless” – moving from friend to friend – in andout of relationships in their search for stability and permanency.The Social Planning Council Mapping Project does not produce youth-specifichousing data.Nepean Community Resource Center and the Cumberland Community ResourceCenter have experienced difficulties in collecting area-specific data.Many agencies do not register the data as requested (ie, by age, demographics,youth specific).Many do not track statistics for youth on their need for housing.A number of programs indicated the lack of resources to manually produce theinformation requested.Given the state of the current system we were unable to establish the number ofyouth in need of housing in Ottawa. Our survey did confirm that the need foraffordable accommodation continues to surpass the existing supply. Unless asignificant number of housing units are created, this shortage will continue.ii) Youth Housing Group ConsultationsPurposeBoth the youth group consultations and surveys targeted youth identified asmembers of the defined clusters. All youth who participated in the consultations completedsurveys. Surveys were also completed by youth who had not participated in the groupconsultations. This wider distribution of surveys allowed for increased data to be collected.Both the Youth Housing Group Consultations (Appendix E) and Surveys (Appendix F)sought information about reasons for leaving home, previous housing experiences andchallenges, preferred model(s) of accommodation, and the type and level of supportneeded.Of the 11 focus groups organized, 8 proceeded as planned. At Wabano and Centredes Services Communautaires de Vanier, low turnout resulted in a decision to proceed withindividual youth surveys. Results are therefore included in the youth survey portion of thereport. Due to time and resources, youth groups were not held at Elizabeth Fry, HousingHelp, Pinecrest-Queensway Community Health Center or Children's Hospital of EasternOntario’s (CHEO) Youth Net Program.FindingsCommon Themes from all Groups Few youth could identify any interventions that would have prevented them fromleaving home All identified the need for safe, affordable housing Most identified the need for life skills and support services. A majority wanted supportservices on site. Almost all supported the idea of a 24 hour number to call for questions,assistance, or information11Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Additional financial assistance for education, training, and personal needs is requiredA majority indicated individual, self-contained accommodation as the preferredhousing model, particularly GLBTQ, single parents, and CASO clientsAlmost all are seeking safe neighborhoods, and involved, caring communitiesAll would benefit from increased financial assistance not just for rent but for hydro,heat, and laundryDifferences amongst Groups Other than the fact that no one preferred rural, preference for locations differed basedon experience and individual needs Participants indicated a range of preferences on mixed versus dedicated housing models Preferences differed on housing type. Young single mothers predominately preferredhouses/townhouses and most were opposed to any sharing Levels and types of support varied between groups and between individuals.A more exhaustive list of group consultation responses can be found in Appendix G ofthe report.iii) Youth SurveysPurposeThe youth surveys, like the youth group consultations, targeted specific “subclusters” rather than a random sampling of youth. In addition to the group consultationquestions, the surveys also included socio-demographic questions (age, gender, orientation,language, cultural background, level of education, source of income, andemployment/educational involvement). Some questions were designed to establish ahousing history, reasons for loss of housing and issues affecting their ability to maintainhousing. The survey also attempted to capture a geographical breakdown of need.Targeting specific youth subgroups impacted on survey results. The focus on single parentmothers increased the number of young women responding. Service Co-ordination, andYouth Net surveys involved mainly youth that resided at home and were dependent onparental income.Participating AgenciesPink Triangle Youth; Native Friendship Center; Wabano Aboriginal Center; Cyber Café;Penganodin Lodge; Odawa Native Friendship Center; Centre de Services Communautairede Vanier; Salvation Army 4 th Floor; Youville Center; CHEO –Youth Net; Centre DavidSmith Center; Young Women’s Emergency Shelter; Talitha-Phase II Open Custody;Ottawa Salus; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa; Daybreak; Inuit Non Profit Housing;Emily Murphy Non- Profit Housing; Service Coordination; Canadian Mental HealthAssociation; St. Mary’s Home; National Capital RegionYMCA/YWCA; Youth ServicesBureau Young Offender Outreach; Operation Go Home; Assertive Community TreatmentTeam (ACTT); Young Women at Risk Program (Sexual Assault Support Centre/TalithaHouse)12Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

FindingsFigure 1 presents general descriptive data from the individual self-report youthsurveys. The average age of the 166 youth that completed individual surveys was 18.5years. This included 95 females, 70 males, and one transgender youth. The three largestage groups were 18 year-olds (26%), 17 year-olds (23%), and 21-24 year-olds (16%).Eighteen to twenty year-olds comprised approximately 46% of the sample. 34 of the youngwomen were caring for at least one child. 15 were developmentally delayed (9 males, 6females), and one had a physical disability. 132 were heterosexual and the rest were gay,lesbian, bisexual, or questioning (GLBTQ) their orientation. Roughly two-thirds of theseyoung people were receiving governmental financial support or had no income, and justover three-quarters were in school or working. Seventy-seven percent reported English astheir first language, seven percent French, and the remainder identified other languages astheir primary dialect. Most (roughly 63%) had achieved between a grade 10 – 12 educationat the time of the survey.Some large differences are evident when variables are analyzed by gender. Table 1cross-tabulates gender by socio-demographic issues and housing needs. Most were inunstable housing situations: shelters, rooming houses, on the street, or with friends. 85reported mental health, substance abuse, offending, parenting, or disability issues whichwould make independent living difficult without counselling support. When males arecompared with females, the biggest variations occur in the categories of age groupings,sexual orientation, parenting needs, living situation, and income. Whereas almost 54% ofthe females fell into the age group of 18 – 20 years, just over 37% of the males were of thisage. Roughly 10% more males were in the under 18 year-old category compared to youngwomen. Although the actual percentage difference between genders is not large in theoverall category of sexual orientation, only female respondents identified as bisexual (13%)or questioning their orientation (3%). In contrast, 17% of the male respondents identifiedas gay; the rest said they were heterosexual.Only young women reported having parenting needs (18% of their group). None ofthe males said that they were caring for children. At the time of the survey, a greaterproportion of males were living with family or with a friend’s family compared to females(49% compared to 39%), and more young women said that they were living in anapartment or rooming house (35% versus 23%). This is likely explained by the highermean age of the female respondents. Finally, Table 1 indicates that a higher proportion ofthe male respondents reported working than females (46% compared to 33%);consequently, more young women depended on government assistance than males (45%compared to 32%). Part of this difference is likely due to the fact that approximately 20%of the females said that they were caring for at least one child.Tables 2.1 – 2.3 analyze gender by reason for leaving last place of residence,preferred counselling arrangement, and required counselling support. Just under one-halfsaid that conflicts with landlords or other tenants had caused the break down of their lasthousing arrangement. A large majority reported that they would require counselling(on/off site, 24-hour on-call support line) to maintain their next independent livingarrangement. One-half said they would prefer living on their own, 46% reported that theypreferred sharing an apartment or house, and 4% indicated that they would like a host homeor room and board arrangement.13Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

As with Table 2, some large gender differences are evident when gender ofrespondents is analyzed by their reported housing needs. Table 2.1 shows that almost twothirdsof the males left their last place of residence due to conflict with the landlord or othertenants, whereas only one-quarter of the female respondents said that this was the cause fortheir departure. On a related note, over one-half of the females reported that they could notmaintain their last residence because of a lack of therapeutic support; under one-fifth of theyoung men said that this was an issue. These two findings support previous research withhigh-risk youth: boys are most likely to externalize their problems (conflict, fighting),whereas girls are most likely to internalize troubles, and find it much easier to identify theirissues and verbalize their feelings. 1Table 2.2 indicates that there are no real gender differences on the issue of preferredhousing arrangement. Roughly equal numbers of males and females reported wanting tolive alone in an apartment or room compared to sharing accommodation. Only 7respondents said that they preferred a room and board or host home arrangement.Table 2.3 presents the respondents’ desired counselling needs by gender. Resultsare comparable to those in Table 2.1. As a group, females were much more likely to reportwanting on-site counselling (59% versus 40%) and usage of a 24-hour on-call line (84%compared to 73%). Although the response rate was low for the category of “no counsellingrequested, 10 males and 5 females responded affirmatively to this.1 Totten, 2001.14Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Figure 1: Socio-Demographic Profiles of 166 RespondentsAge15 yrs: 3% (5)15 yrs: 4.8% (8)16 yrs: 9.6% (16)17 yrs: 22.9% (38)18 yrs: 25.9% (43)19 yrs: 13.3% (22)20 yrs: 4.8% (8)21 – 24 yrs: 15.7% (26)Age Groupingsunder 18 yrs: 38.6% (64)18 – 20 years: 46.4% (77)21 – 24 yrs: 15.1% (25)GenderMale: 42.2% (70)Female: 57.2% (95)Transgender: 0.6% (1)Sexual OrientationHeterosexual 79.5% (132)Gay 7.2% (12)Lesbian 4.2% (7)Bisexual 7.2% (12)Questioning 1.8% (3)Housing SupportsMental Health 51Life Skills 52Substance Abuse 11Criminal 8Parent 9Disability 6IncomeWork 38.9% (63)Income Support 35.2% (57)None 19.8% (32)CAS 3.7% (6)Family 2.5% (4)Young Parents20.5% (34)LanguageEnglish 77.1% (128)French 7.2% (12)Other 15.7% (26)Highest School Level> Grade 9 7.5% (12)Grade 10 20.6% (33)Grade 11 24.4% (39)Grade 12 17.5% (28)OAC 6.9% (11)Post-Second 6.3% (10)Not in School or TrainingProgram:22.9% (38)Not all categories add up to 166 as some respondents declined to answer some questions.15Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Table 1:Socio-Demographic and Housing Issues, by Gender (n = 165)GENDERMALES(70)MEANAGE17.3 years31 undereighteenyrs.(43.5%)26 eighteen –twenty yrs.(37.7%)13 twenty-one– twenty-fouryrs. (18.8%)SEXUALORIEN-TATION58 (83%)heterosexual12 (17%)gaySCHOOLGRADELEVEL5 (9%) gradenine or less42 (75%)gradesten – twelve9 (16%) OAC/postsecondaryWORK/STUDY/TRAINING45 (71%)working/studying18 (29%) nostructureHOUSINGNEEDS30 (47%) lifeskills20 (31%) mentalhealth6 (9%) substanceabuse7 (11%) crime1 (2%) physicaldisabilityLIVINGSITUA-TION34 (49%)family/friend’shome16 (23%)apartment/room house11 (16%)shelter/streetINCOME32 (46%)work22 (32%)support14 (20%)none1 (2%)OSAP9 (12%)group/foster homerehab(n = 70)(n = 70)(n = 56)(n = 63)(n =64 responses)(n = 70)(n =69)FEMALES(95)17.8 years32 undereighteenyrs.(33.7%)51 eighteen –twenty yrs.(53.7%)12 twenty-one– twenty-fouryrs. (12.6%)73 (77%)heterosexual12 (13%)bisexual7 (7%)lesbian3 (3%)questioning7 (9%) gradenine or less58 (75%)gradesten – twelve12 (16%)OAC/postsecondary71 (78%)working/studying20 (12%) nostructure21 (32%) mentalhealth22 (33%) lifeskills12 (18%)parenting5 (8%) substanceabuse1 (1%) crime37 (39%)family/friend’shome33 (35%)apartment/room house18 (19%)shelter/street30 (33%)work41 (45%)support18 (20%)none3 (2%)OSAP5 (8%)developmentaldisability7 (7%)group/foster/rehab(n = 95) (n = 95) (n = 77) (n = 91) (n = 66 responses) (n = 95) (n = 92)TOTAL 63 under 165 133154 107 responded; 165 161165 eighteen(32 did not (11 did not some(four didyears;respond) respond) respondentsnot77 eighteen –reported morerespond)twenty years;than one issue25 twenty-(130 issues)one years orolderNote: Transgendered participant is not included in this table because detailed information could reveal his/heridentity.16Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Table 2: Housing Needs, by Gender2.1 Reason for Leaving Last Place of Residence, by GenderMales61 (54.4%)Females51 (45.6%)Transgender1(1%)Totals113 (100%)Conflict withLandlord/ TenantsTreatmentProgram DischargeLack of Support Found NewHousingTotals63% (38) 8% (5) 18% (11) 11% (7) 100% (61)25% (13) 8% (4) 51% (26) 16% (8) 100% (51)1 100% (1)51 (45.1%) 9 (8%) 38 (33.6%) 15 (13.3%) 100% (113)2.2 Preferred Housing Arrangement, by GenderMales67 (40.8%)Females92 (59.2%)Transgender1(1%)Totals160 (100%)Room & Board/Host HomeSingle Room/BachelorApartmentShared Apartment/Room/HouseTotals2% (3) 52% (34) 46% (30) 100% (67)6% (4) 48% (45) 46% (43) 100% (92)1 100% (1)7 (4%) 79 (49.8%) 74 (46.2%) 100% (160)2.3 Required Counselling Support, by GenderMales70 (40.8%)Females95 (59.2%)Transgender1(1%)Totals166 (100%)On Site Off Site Would Use 24-hourOn-Call LineNo CounsellingRequested40% (28) 39% (27) 73% (51) 14% (10)59% (56) 27% (26) 84% (80) 5% (5)1 184 (50.6%) 54 (32.5%) 132 (79%) 15 (9%)17Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

iv. Service Provider ConsultationsPurposeOnce the youth group consultations and surveys were completed, a service providerconsultation was organized. This consultation was held on January 16, 2002 at the StaffTraining Center of the Public School Board (formerly Confederation High School). 30individuals representing 18 agencies participated in the consultation. A “dotocracy”exercise identified the top four youth cluster interests of attending service providers. Theywere young single parents, youth with mental health issues, youth with addictions issuesand youth who identify as GLBTTQ. The consultation consisted of an opening and closingplenary with two lengthy break-out sessions focussing on recommendations for housingand support solutions relevant to the four sub-groups. Steering Committee members sharedfacilitation and recording functions for each of the break-out groups. The format for theService Provider Consultation can be found in Appendix E.Information provided by participants was used to inform the overall visiondevelopment process. Participants provided positive feedback on the framework andcontent of the day’s discussions. The primary focus of the consultation was to solicitrecommendations on the models of housing and support services relevant to the identifiedyouth clusters. Focussed follow-up interviews to fill identified information gaps wereundertaken following the consultation. These included housing providers (City Living,Ottawa Housing Corporation), the Social Service Youth Outreach Team and Jane Fjeld ofthe Centre for Addictions and Mental Health. Linda Wadland of Housing Help connectedwith a series of guidance counsellors and multicultural liaison officers within the highschool network (Appendix K) to gain their insights.FindingsKey Themes from Working Groups January 16, 2002a. Mental Health Working Group Those who experience significant mental health issues require a coordinated responseof housing and support services Housing should not be transitional in nature – issues will not be “outgrown” This population often includes youth with dual diagnosis disorders, and complex issues This population would benefit from smaller, supportive, but integrated environmentswith support systems that respond to fluctuating need Ottawa needs a coordinated system of hospitalization/crisis – stabilization –reintegration A last-resort option for youth that are periodically unable to access current shelteroptions is required Youth with mental health issues require a multi-tiered model of housing and theopportunity to move through the continuum There needs to be greater support for families of youth with mental health issues toprevent family burnout There needs to be a residential facility that offers 24/7 support on site for youth leavingthe hospital where home is not an optionb. Single Parents Working Group18Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Additional safe, affordable housing is desperately needed. Housing instability impactsthe child as well as the young parentIn addition to daycare, these youth need a readily accessible range of support such asparenting, respite, babysitting, living skillsThere is a need for housing for young parenting couples not just young single parentsEmergency Shelter or shared accommodation is not recommended for these youth.Strong emphasis was placed on the need for safe neighborhoods and the availability ofparks and green spacec. GLBTTQ Working Group These youth need a range of housing options that are GLBTTQ safe – if not dedicatedthen GLBTTQ friendly A Peer Support model is essential Support should include information, linkages to GLBTTQ special events, advocacy andpolitical efforts There is a need for sensitivity training for some current housing/shelter providers GLBTTQ youth need a range of support services/life skills, personal etc. 24 hour accessibility was seen to be beneficial It was recommended that a “Don” model ( on site support) be explored for thispopulationd. Addictions Working Group This group did not focus on youth requiring residential treatment but rather on thecontinuum for post treatment or “out patient” A range of non gender-specific housing models, minimizing sharing was recommended Opinion was divided on whether housing for this population should be youth-specificor integrated Smaller settings were preferred Meeting space on site was recommended The definition of “transitional” needs to be flexible, as one year may not be enough. The continuum should include harm reduction component(s) and should not all beabstinence-based Youth with addictions issues need access to a variety of support services.Key Themes from Individual Service Provider Interviewsa. Jane Fjeld, Centre for Addictions and Mental Health It would be difficult to recommend “one” model as youth with addictions issues oftenexperience complex, concurrent issues Housing was identified as a primary issue for youth in the Beth Allan/Judith NolteStudy (Harm Reduction for Homeless Persons with Addictions in Ottawa) There is the need for a continuum of housing options ranging from highly supervisedclinical residential settings, to controlled use/harm reduction models in self-containedunits A strong life skills/acquisition component and engagement in meaningful activity(school/work) is important19Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Comprehensive addictions-related support services are needed. Those offering theseservices need to be sufficiently trained.b. City Living/Ottawa Housing Corporation Rooming houses, though not ideal, end up being more available for youth There is general support for integrated versus dedicated buildings Self contained units are preferable; if sharing, sufficient personal space is necessary Youth can benefit from generic on site support that facilitates access to more“focussed” support. Support needs to be client-driven and preferably delivered byyouth-oriented workers Block leases with contracted supports have worked best at City Living Smaller buildings tend to have less issues than larger Youth would benefit from enhanced financial support including educational funding.A more comprehensive breakdown of feedback from the above can be found inAppendix J.c. Eight Guidance Counsellors, Ottawa District School BoardReasons for Youth Leaving Home Family conflict, blended or new families Addictions issues/Mmntal health issues Abusive home situation Cultural issues Overcrowding House rules too strict or no structureAssistance to RemainEarlier detection/intervention/mediationLack of social workers in school board to effectively detect issues & intervene; moresocial work time allocatedAddictions counsellingFamily counsellingQuicker access to intervention/supportCrisis responseHousing NeededHomes in the community (friends/relatives)Supportive rooming house – individual locked rooms, communal kitchen, commonareas24/7 supervision, rulesSupportive environment with “Don” on siteLife skills componentCo-op/students share responsibility for householdAccess to support workers- social workers, health care workers, peer advisorsStorefront school works with youth age 19-21 who are developmentally delayed.Current services available( ie Drop In) problematic for this vulnerable populationShared accommodation, peer matching most appropriate for this population.20Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

There is a need for other support services.d. Five Multicultural Liaison Officers, Ottawa District School BoardTarget PopulationYouth 15-20, males & female visible minority youth, new CanadiansReasons for Leaving HomeAbuse, cultural conflict, intergenerational gapOvercrowdingAssistance to RemainAccess to larger subsidized accommodationCo-ordinated support for familyEducation, workshops to understand and bridge differences about intergenerationalissuesHousing NeededCommunity-oriented housing vs. high riseShared housingAccess to recreational facilities (opportunities)Counsellor, supervision, support on siteSecurityA more detailed chart of feedback from discussions with school board guidance andmulticultural liaison personnel can be found in Appendix K.e. People Services Youth Outreach Team, City of OttawaClient Groups identified (constituency) for which there were particular difficulties: Single parents Young couples/parents Youth with mental health issues, released from hospital, nowhere to go Those that are developmentally challenged, not fitting the criteria of “disabled” butstruggling. Intellectual capacity further challenged by unstable/non-nurturing, resource-poor homelife. Refugees: singles, not street smart, don’t speak the language, some with false passports,left or abandoned, escaping arranged marriages. There are homes who voluntarily “takein” some of these youth or it would be an even bigger issue. ESL Issues: younger; need for a reception home. Often taken in. Anecdotal sense of reduction in glbt youth requesting social assistance No significant numbers of youth from correctional facilities/custody discharge planningdone No sense of need for physically accessible: support the plan for one unit at McEwen. Young moms: end up in hotel rooms; on long waitlists; have constant moves; losebelongings; isolated, expensive.21Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

What housing forms are needed?More second stage accommodationsMore transitional/better rooming house accommodation: own room (lockablespace),sharedkitchen/amenity space;(access to supports)More youth-dedicated Shelters: one for single young moms which allows longer staysSpread around city: too much moving around place to place to establish selvesRaise age range for single parents to 24Avoid ghettoization in site selectionYoung parents not just single parentsSome housing dedicated for young women (versus co-ed)Staffed model for addicted youth: youth-specific, in-depth treatment facility needed;graduation, away from “debts” cultureRooms in a family home: host homeSeniors with a room: empty nesters, provide support, match carefullyUse a central registry to match and support.Support Services:More mental health workers and outreach workersHelp line not a crisis line (model operating in USA?)Drop-in office on siteSuperintendentConnected to medical services: travelling mobile, health clinic, change bandages anddressingsStabilization housing, in crisis (few days, few hours)Hands on support for some: medication, appointments, assistance with forms/deadlinesOutreach teams reduced from 12 to 7: not as much opportunity to spend time withyouth;volume requires absolutely necessary transactions only.Present system not user-friendly: frustration for both youth and client; no time toexplore need/informationSplit age with Ontario Works not ideal; youth 16-24 is better.c. Vision DevelopmentFollowing the Service Provider consultation on January 16, 2002, the Youth HousingDevelopment Team identified common themes arising from the surveys and consultations: 24 hr access to help by phone was supported by both youth and service providers Peer support/mentoring important “Don” model should be explored Continuum of housing choice/services/options needed with varying intensity ofservices, responsive to need, influenced by developmental age and stage of youth Flexibility in model of housing and supports Consideration of needs of both the group and the individual22Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Inclusive of issuesGeographically dispersed, suburban and centralYouth with significant mental health issues are not going to “outgrow” difficultiesTransitional model not as useful; stability, permanency needed for some youthNeed for flexibility in length of time allowed to stay: differing needs, pace of learningGoals & supports in place but not mandatoryServices should be “built” in, part of the package, on site, more normalizedHow support is framed/presented is crucial: support not supervisionMore a “wraparound model”: information on community supports built/developed; useof community not just professional resourcesNo consensus on integration vs. segregation issueFlexible, portable support for individuals, particularly with youth with mental healthissuesSingle parent housing working against healthy relationships/couple units; safety ofyoung women needs to be in place and young children are vulnerable; but there is meritto a supported period of adjustment in a relationshipWomen-only setting indicated for someNeeds of transgender youth need to be accommodatedWith GLB populations, gender not generally a strong issueCore of GLB youth to feel supported, one of a groupMany youth, particularly single parents prefer small buildings to large; opportunity toget to know your neighbours and to build a community within a communityThe CAS of Ottawa uses an adult mentor model for transitional accommodation: auniversity student, in a relevant discipline – clear role – mentor vs. the gate keeper;works best when adequate supervision is in placeOn site mentor is first line of intervention, least intrusive; “more professional”approach than a roommate-minimum requirements for live-in mentorCrisis response availability is a systems issue24hr line: piggyback onto an existing line? mobile crisis? distress center?Use of extended hours/outreachServices/interventions should be prioritized evenings and weekends, responsive toavailability of youth, visiting periodically (outreach), accessibleGaps/system faults- more options neededNeeds/preference of some youth require segregated/ dedicated model ( iesingle/parents-common issues)A small group (mental health, behavioral issues) that are not welcome at shelters,barred, banned due to behavior, need a last-resort option periodicallyA “Hope Outreach ” for youth program?Ottawa lacks mental health, crisis, respite, and stabilization bedsShelters experience difficulty dealing with some youth with serious physical or mentalhealth issues, are violent, disruptive or intoxicated.Gaps in Service Provider Cluster representation at consultation: Single parents Addictions Cultural barriers23Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

TransgenderDevelopmental disabilitiesPhysical disabilitiesi. Models of PracticeDuring the needs assessment stage of the project, Committee Members (or theirdelegates) were engaged in facilitating or co-facilitating youth group consultations. Thesegroups were held at the various sponsoring agency locations, providing opportunities forthe team to witness components of the current continuum. Committee members alsoparticipated in a tour of some existing youth housing sites (YSB Apartments, theYMCA/YWCA and Emily Murphy Non-Profit Housing for Single Parents). The Chair ofthe committee visited Toronto to tour Covenant House, and Eva’s Initiatives three sites andto access information from Pape Adolescent Resource Center provided on their HousingProgram.The search also involved an internet scan of a number youth housing models fromthe United States, Scotland and Australia. Models ranged from host/foster homes toemergency shelters to independent self-contained models. Support services ranged fromintensive on site to voluntary client-driven interventions. Services evolved in eachcommunity in response to need but were influenced by funding sources (extent ofgovernment versus community sponsors). While communities differed on the structure andmodels of service, all shared many of the same issues faced in Ottawa.Key Best Practice Elements1. Programs need to focus on the unique needs of youth.2. Youth need a continuum of housing as they move towards independent selfsufficiency.Within the continuum there needs to be a choice of options responsiveto varying youth needs.3. Housing services for youth need to focus on the acquisition of basic living skills.4. In addition to financial support, services need to address issues related to health,education, employment training and recreation.5. There needs to be a range of types, intensity and models of delivery of supportservices responsive to youth issues.6. Services are most effective when coordinated.7. Community-based services can best respond to local needs and advocate and raiseawareness of youth housing issues. They are also better situated to engage privatesector support in the forms of volunteering, donations and services in kind.8. Programs need to be client-directed as much as possible, encouraging high levels ofyouth involved in planning, participating and informing service delivery.Programs Scanned Scotland: (Scottish Council for Single Homelessness – Youth Housing Strategy Unit) California: (CDSS – Children and Family Services and Los Angeles CountyCommunity Development Commission) Minnesota: (Lutheran Social Services) Portland Oregon: (New Avenues for Youth)24Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

New Jersey: (Office on Youth Services and Community Development)Australia: (Youth Accommodation Coalition of Victoria)Covenant House: (New Orleans, Michigan and a visit to Toronto)Virginia: (Department of Family Services, The Mentor Home Program)There are a wealth of program and service models to further investigate as a network, oncethe components of the plan are more concrete. “Transitional Housing: Best Practices &Pitfalls” contains some helpful information to guide transitional housingii) Does Our Data Support Best Practice Models? Prevention/Respite: A number of intensive, home-based programs have emerged overthe past year. The YSB Mobile Crisis Team served 307 unique clients (1015 crisiscontacts) between April 2001 – March 2002. YSB has also committed funds tomaintain Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST), another intensive service oriented topreserving the family unit, following the finish of the Eastern Ontario Young OffenderServices MST program. Youth Services Bureau has negotiated a reduced Shelter ratein preparation for respite placements in the GLBTQ Host Home Pilot. Safe Housing: GLBTQ, female, and young women with children face particular safetyconcerns beyond what most male youth face due to their special needs. This is clearlyevident in the gender comparison of youth survey responses related to counsellingneeds, reasons for leaving last place of residence, and desired future housingarrangements. Most male respondents said that they did not want counselling, nor didthey have any particular issues that would impede their abilities to live independently.On the other hand, almost all GLBTQ and female youth reported having significantpsycho-social concerns, which caused difficulties for living independently. Thesegroups were highly likely to desire on-site counselling, and reported that the lack ofsuch support was the primary reason for the breakdown of their last living situation. Supported Housing: There is a discrepancy between what youth participants andservice providers desire in this area. Although both groups indicated the need forsupported, rooming house-like living arrangements, most youth said that they were notinterested in the host-home or room and board arrangement. Service providers, on theother hand, reported that this would be a cost-effective, practical option. Affordable Housing: Other than the contract with John Doran and Domicile on theMcEwen Project, local developers have not been engaged in the development ofaffordable transition and longer-term housing for youth. This remains a key gap to beaddressed. Poverty: The provision of safe and affordable housing can enable youth to have thestability and resources to complete their education, participate in job training, andsecure employment. Health of the Chronically Homeless: The forms of housing described above areassociated with improved health particularly for a-risk populations such as adolescentparents and GLBT youth.25Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

d. Implementation PlanThe following recommendations were established by the Youth Housing Development Teamto provide a guide for the work of the expanded committee.Recommendations to Reduce Youth Homelessness in Ottawa1. Build on the established Youth Housing Development Team to support an ongoingnetwork of youth housing professionals to meet on a regular basis to improve sectorplanning and respond more effectively to funding opportunities. Expand membershipon the committee to promote broader representation.2. Support ongoing research initiatives in order to enhance understanding of BestPractices for the prevention and intervention with homeless youth. Continue to supportand provide data to HIFIS and the University of Ottawa’s Center for Research onCommunity Services Evaluation Project. Participate in the “Panel Study: Pathways Intoand Out of Homelessness” Project.3. Maximize financial support options for youth and advocate for improved access toavailable scholarships, bursaries and grants.4. Encourage the development of a continuum of housing and support services relevant tothe diverse housing needs of youth in Ottawa by addressing identified gaps. Theexploration of existing models needs to consider evidence-based best practicewhenever possible.5. Explore the need for a last resort option for youth who are periodically not able toaccess existing shelters.6. Advocate for more beds for complex need youth who require more intensive, longertermresidential services (addictions/mental health).7. Support the Host Homes Pilot program and assess the effectiveness for potentialexpansion to other target youth groups.8. Increase home-based community supports to families of youth with mental healthissues including crisis/respite/stabilization options.9. Explore opportunities arising from the recommendations of the Mayor’s Task Force onPrivate/Public Partnership on Housing. Funding for youth housing must include bothcapital and sustained support dollars. Identify private and public sector partners tocontribute finances and/or resources.26Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

4. CONCLUSIONAlthough the “Vision Development And Implementation Planning To PreventYouth Homelessness” Project was not able to meet all of its objectives within the projecttime frame, significant progress has been made and much has been accomplished. TheYouth Housing Development Team, a committee of representatives of organizations withan interest in youth and youth housing has been meeting for over a year to collaborativelywork on the project. This team would serve as the foundation for an on-going network,committed to improved sector planning, able to respond more effectively to fundingopportunities. Youth Services Bureau is prepared to continue to coordinate this committee.Despite challenges in establishing an accurate “count” of the number of youth whoare homeless or at risk of homelessness, it is clear that there are insufficient housingresources to meet the current demand. There is not enough safe, affordable accommodationfor youth. Shelter usage and a growing waitlist for subsidized housing are signs of theincreasing need. The youth group consultations, surveys, and service provider consultationshave provided us with an even clearer “picture” of the complex needs of the youthpopulation and the broadening gaps in service. The following issues were identifiedconsistently by the vast majority of participants in this study: The current rental market reflects record low vacancy rates. Even lower-end rents arebeyond the reach of the vast majority of youth Ottawa ‘s social housing registry continues to have excessively long wait lists forsubsidized housing (5 to 8 years) Youth are a transient “moving” target population who are disadvantaged by currentsystems Youth lack credit/housing history and references; experience discrimination bylandlords; have limited financial resources; lack needed life skills; and often makeimpulsive decisions Youth lack knowledge of their rights (landlord/tenant) and are at high risk ofeviction/loss of housingIt is also clear that there is no “quick fix” to address the need. Youth homelessnessis a complex issue and the solution lies in the collaborative development of a range ofhousing and support options for youth. While a number of gaps were identified during the“Vision” planning exercise, various potential strategies were also suggested forexploration.The City of Ottawa has recently released their Affordable Housing Strategyfollowing the “Mayor’s Task Force On Private/Public Partnerships For Affordable Housingreport (Creating a Legacy: An Action Plan For Affordable Housing Feb. 2002). Thestrategy provides incentives to engage private sector partners in the development of27Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

affordable housing. It will soon be evident whether or not these incentives are sufficient toengage the private sector.The youth we serve are at the lowest end of the affordability spectrum. For the mostpart, they cannot come close to affording even moderate market rents. Significant capitalinvestment and/or on-going rental subsidies are required to produce truly affordablehousing. All levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal, are needed to createand sustain affordable housing.The GLBTQ Host Home Program is just starting to match hosts with youth.Additional opportunity and evaluation are needed to explore the application of this modelto a broader homeless youth population. Successful use of such housing would allow youngpeople to remain in their own communities, closer to their schools and network of support,without the necessity to invest significant capital.A number of potential service partnerships still remain to be explored over the comingmonths: Rideau Street Youth Enterprises and Youth Services Bureau Youth EmploymentProgram would like to explore the potential for creating a housing-linked employmentinitiative The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa remains interested in developing options foryouth in care moving towards independence St. Mary’s Home has expressed an interest in exploring potential partnership for use ofthe vacant portion of their new program site The YMCA/YWCA remain prepared to partner on a program of jointly administeredrent supplements linked to their satellite recreation and leadership programs A spin-off committee of the Youth Housing Development Team is engaged in aplanning process to develop a combined Shelter /Transitional Housing model for bothmale and female youth. The proposed initiative would expand existing shelter capacityand create much needed additional transitional housing for youthThese and other initiatives could incrementally start to fill some of the gaps in thecontinuum of youth housing services. A compendium of current youth housing/ supportservices will soon be available for reference. The completion of the McEwen Project in2003 will result in the capacity of this community to house an additional 30 individualswho would otherwise be homeless or at risk of being homeless. The Youth HousingDevelopment Team has committed to continuing to work towards the development of acomprehensive plan to address youth homelessness in Ottawa.28Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

5. REFERENCESAllan, Beth and Nolté, Judith (2001). Harm Reduction for Homeless Persons withAdditions in Ottawa. Working Group on Addictions in the Homeless Population.California Department of Social Services. Transitional Housing Placement Program.Independent Living Program. http://www.childsworld.org/services/servlivtrans.htmlCovenant House Toronto Information Package (2001). Covenant House Toronto.www.covenanthoust.on.caEva’s Initiatives Information Package (2000). Eva’s Initiatives. www.evasinitiatives.orgCommunity Task Force on Homeless/Street Youth (1992). Support Services toHomeless/Street Youth in Ottawa-Carleton: A Needs Assessment and Plan For Action.Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada (1999). Where’s Home: A Picture of HousingNeeds in Ontario.Farrell, Susan, Aubry, Tim, Kludawsky, Fran, Pettey, Donna (1999). Describing theHomeless Population of Ottawa-Carleton. Centre for Research on Community Services,Faculty of Social Sciences, University of OttawaLos Angeles County Community Development Commission. Emancipated Foster YouthTransitional Housing. Housing Programs.http://www.1acdc.org/programs/development/youth.shtmlLutheran Social Services of Minnesota (2000). Safe House/Youth Transitional Housing.http://www.1ssmn.org/ythtran.htmlMayor’s Task Force on Private/Public Partnerships for Affordable Housing Report:“Creating a Legacy: An Action Plan For Affordable Housing.” February 2002.National Housing and Homelessness Network (2001). State of the Crisis 2001.Nelson, Jackie (2001). New Transitional Housing Concept to Serve Homeless Youth.Lutheran Social Services of Minnesota. http://www.1ssmn.org/press/press_rezek.html;http://www.1ssmn.org/press/press_rezek.htmNesselbush, Lynn (1997). Transitional Housing: Best Practices & Pitfalls.http://www.homebaseccc.org/housing.htmlOttawa Withdrawal Management Centre (2001). Program Design/Feasibility StudyCommunity Withdrawal Management for Women V.3.29Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

People Services Department (2000). Affordable Housing Strategy For the City of Ottawa,Policy and Programs Division.Pink Triangle Services (2001). The Wellness Project.Ponée, Charles (2001). Service Inventory and Residential Programming Review. OSABAddiction Service.Portland, Oregon Educational Services. Transitional Living Facility, The Day ServicesCenter for Basic Needs, Educational Services. http://www.newavenues.org/transiton_.htmlSauvé, Geneviève (2000). The Ottawa Youth Labour Market Situation: A Closer Look.Programs and Services, Ottawa HRCC.Scottish Council for Single Homeless. Youth Housing Strategy Unit.http://www.scsh.co.uk/youth.htmlSocial Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton (2000). Key to Programs for People Who AreHomeless or at Risk of Homelessness.Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton (2000). Ottawa-Carleton 1997 to April 2000Family Homeless Shelters’ Population by Last Home Address in Ottawa by Ward.The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (1997). The Mentor Home Program Brochure.Department of Family Services.The City of Trenton, New Jersey (2000). Office on Youth Services & CommunityDevelopment. http://www.ci.trenton.nj.us/hcsform.htmlWhynot, Jane, Solvason-Wiebe, Ishbel, Warr, Karilyn (2000). An Analysis of the SocialHousing Waiting List in the Region of Ottawa-Carleton. Social Housing Registry ofOttawa-Carleton.Youth Accommodation Coalition of Victoria. The Youth Housing Program & theCommunity Housing Group Restructure.http://www.infoxchange.net.au/rhchome/iurhc/tender5.html30Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

We’re Ready To Start!!APPENDIX AThanks to the support from our service partners and thecity of Ottawa’s “Homelessness Initiatives Funding”the Youth Services Bureau will be co-ordinating thedevelopment of a strategic vision and plan to addressYouth Homelessness in Ottawa.WE NEED YOUR HELP!!We are in the process of establishing a Steering Committee and over the nextfew months we will be organizing a series of focus groups with youth andservice providers to hear your ideas and recommendations.There are several ways to participate.“Attend or organize a focus group, write, call, fax or email!”We want to hear from YOU!!For more information, please contact:Judy Perley1338 ½ Wellington St.,Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 3B7Tel: 1-613-729-0577 x256Fax: 1-613-729-1918Email: judyp@ysb.on.ca31Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Agency SurveyAPPENDIX BAgency: _________________________________Form Completed By: _______________________Although our project indentifies youth as those 16 to 20 years of age we recognize some organizationsdefine youth differently. Please indicate the age range used to identify your youth statistics (eg. 16-19; 16-24), __________.Cumulative Year 2000 Data:The period covered by these statistics is the calendar year 2000the fiscal year 2000/2001.Year 2000April 2001 SnapshotTotal________ # of distinct youth ________requiring housingOf these, please identify________ # of males ________# of females ________# of transgendered ________________ # of youth who identify ________as GLB(gay, lesbian, bisexual)________ # of youth who identify ________as visible minority________ # of youth who identify ________as aboriginal or Inuit________ # of single parents ________Can you provide the number or an estimate of the percentage of the total number of youth who experiencea disability which impacts their day to day ability to live independently due to:# or Estimated % # or estimated %______ ______ Alcohol/Substance Abuse ______ ____________ ______ Mental Health Issues ______ ____________ ______ Physical Disability ______ ____________ ______ Developmental Disability ______ ______32Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Geographic Breakdown of Youth# or estimated % from former: # or estimated %________ _______ City of Kanata ________ ________________ _______ City of Nepean ________ ________________ _______ City of Gloucester ________ ________________ _______ City of Ottawa ________ ________________ _______ Goulbourn Township ________ ________________ _______ Cumberland Township ________ ________________ _______ Other (Including out of town) ________ ________General Comments:__________________________________________________________________We are planning to conduct focus group discussions in the near future with both service providersand youth to assess youth housing needs in Ottawa.Yes NoWe are interested in participating in a service provider focus group:Contact Name:____________ Tel.:__________ Email: __________ Fax:__________We are interested in helping to facilitate a focus groupwith our youth:YesNoContact Name:____________ Tel: __________ Email: __________ Fax: __________We are willing to distribute questionnaires to our youth and Yes Noforward back to you the completed forms.Contact Name: _____________ Tel: __________ Email: __________ Fax: __________Survey of Current Housing Options/Housing Support Services1. Program:HousingHousing SupportYouth Dedicated or Mixed Population Including Youth33Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Description of Program: (Please complete or attach pamphlet/fact sheet)____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Eligibility Criteria:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Contact Information:__________________________________________________________________2. Program:HousingHousing SupportYouth Dedicated or Mixed Population Including YouthDescription of Program: (Please complete or attach pamphlet/fact sheet)____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Eligibility Criteria:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Contact Information:__________________________________________________________________3. Program:HousingHousing SupportYouth Dedicated or Mixed Population Including YouthDescription of Program: (Please complete or attach pamphlet/fact sheet)____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Eligibility Criteria:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Contact Information____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________34Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Youth Housing Group ConsultationQuestion 1What can be done to prevent youth from leaving their home?APPENDIX CPromptsi) What are some of the reasons youth feel they need to leave home?(We are looking for some insights as to why youth leave their family home, someyouth may not have had a choice as they may have been taken from their homes)ii) What sort of things could be done to help youth to stay in their home?(looking for some homelessness prevention ideas that might include respite care,family support counselling, emergency housing in the family’s community)Question 2Once youth are living outside of their family home, what can be done to assist them to keeptheir housing?Promptsi) What do you think are the sorts of things that cause youth to leave their housing?(Looking for why youth lose their independent or semi-independent housing outsideof the family home)ii) If I wanted to get evicted, what would I need to do?iii) In your experience, what helps youth to keep their housing.DotocracyProvide participants with a definition of different kinds of youth housing. Post thedifferent type of models around the room. Each participant gets three dots and they canchoose the three options that they think would be most useful to them.35Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Rooming HousePrivate bedroom with sharedwashroom and cooking facilities.Shared HouseMulti bedroom house shared bymore than two unrelated people.OtherRoom and BoardPrivate room with shared washroomand cooking facilities (may be sharedwith the home owner) mealsincluded with the room.Shared RoomLarge double or triple size rooms withshared washroom and cookingfacilities.Shared ApartmentTwo or three bedroom apartmentshared by two or three unrelatedpeople. Contains own washroom andcooking facilityApartmentSelf contained apartment not sharedwith unrelated people.Host HomePrivate room in a home of an adult orfamily with additional support from aservice agency.Level of Support/SupervisionOn site, 24 hours per dayOn site, during daytime onlyOff site, with regular visitsNo support servicesOff site, with a phone number I can callwhen I need itOtherOptional BreakFacilitator uses the results of the voting to determine which of the housing types and levelsof support we need to elicit more specific feedback about the perceived strengths andweakness. The facilitator could quickly review why nobody voted for certain selections.(i.e. only two chose “Room and Board” , why?; everybody voted for “On site, duringdaytime only”, why do you like that option so much?)36Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Facilitator selects the three most popular models of housing and solicits feedback on thestrengths and weaknesses of each choice.Question 3Which Housing Services would best meet the needs of youth in Ottawa?PromptsWhat do you like about _____________?What do you dislike about ___________?What would you change about ________________ to make it even better?What would you see that support/supervision person doing?Question 4What are the unique needs of single parents, gay, lesbian, transgendered, males, females,visible minorities, aboriginal, Inuit, francophone youth with regards to getting or keepinghousing?PromptsDo you see this as being a model only for: Youth, Single Parents, Gay, Lesbian,Transgendered, Males, Females, Visible minorities, Aboriginal, Inuit, Francophone, youthwith physical disabilities, youth with mental illnesses…What are the advantages of dedicated housing for __________________?What are the disadvantages of dedicated housing for ________________?Is there anything about being_____________________ that makes it easier to get ormaintain housing?Is there anything about being ______________________that makes it more difficult to getor maintain housing?37Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

Youth Housing Needs SurveyAPPENDIX DThe Youth Housing Development Team is interested in determining the housing needs foryouth over the next few years. The information from this survey will help the Teamidentify what types of housing and support are useful for youth in order to maintainhousing. We are inviting you to complete this questionnaire. It will take about 10-20minutes to complete. Your completion of the questionnaire indicates your consent toparticipate in the study. Please complete the questionnaire only once.You are under no obligation to participate and if you choose to participate you may decidenot to answer certain questions. No legal, physical or social risks or discomforts areexpected from your participation. Possibly you may feel some stress if you have wantedhousing and/or support and have been unable to get it. Information collected isanonymous and confidential. All information will be kept private and stored in a secureplace. If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Judy Perley from theYouth Services Bureau at 729-0577 ext. 256.1. Age:❏ Under 15❏ 15❏ 16❏ 17❏ 18❏ 19❏ 20❏ 21-242. Gender: ❏ Female ❏ Male ❏ Transgender3. Identify as: ❏ Straight ❏ Gay ❏ Lesbian ❏ Bisexual❏ Questioning4. Primary Language(s) spoken: ❏ English ❏ French ❏Other:_____________5. What is your family’s cultural background? (for example, French, Somali, Italian,Aboriginal, Inuit etc.)______________________________________________________________________6. Do you identify with your family’s cultural background ? ❏ Yes ❏ No38Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

7. Last year of school completed:❏ Less than grade 9❏ Grade 9❏ Grade 10❏ Grade 11❏ Grade 12❏ OAC❏ Post Secondary8. Where did you grow up?Former city of:❏ Ottawa❏ Kanata❏ Nepean❏ Gloucester❏ Goulbourn Township❏ Cumberland Township❏ Other Where?:_________________________________9. Do you have any children who are or will be living with you? ❏ Yes ❏ NoIf yes, what age(s): ________________________10. What is your main source of income?❏ No Source of Income❏ Full Time Work❏ Part Time/Casual Work❏ Ontario Works (“welfare”)❏ CAS (Children’s Aid Society)❏ OSAP (Ontario Student Assistance Program)❏ ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program)❏ EI (Employment Insurance)❏ Other:_________________________11. Do you go to school? ❏ No ❏ Yes, ➩ ❏ Full Time ❏ Part Time12. Do you work or participatein a training program ❏ No ❏ Yes ❏ Full Time ❏ Part Time13. Do you volunteer? ❏ No ❏ Yes, ❏ Full Time ❏ Part Time14 What type(s) of leisure activities are you involved in? (e.g. physical activity, drama,hobbies, reading, team sports):________________________________________________________________39Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

15. Where are you currently living?❏ Own apartment❏ Shared apartment❏ Rooming house❏ Parent’s home❏ Relative’s home❏ Friend’s family home❏ Friend’s home❏ Room and Board❏ Group Home❏ Foster Home❏ Semi-Independent Living Program (CAS, YMCA)❏ Custody/Detention Centre❏ Addiction/Rehab Centre❏ Emergency Shelter❏ Streets❏ Other:_______________________16. How long have you been there?❏ Less than 3 months❏ 4-6 months❏ 7-12 months❏ More than one year17. Where were you living before that?❏ Own apartment❏ Shared apartment❏ Rooming house❏ Parent’s home❏ Relative’s home❏ Friend’s family home❏ Friend’s home❏ Room and Board❏ Group Home❏ Foster Home❏ Semi-Independent Living Program (CAS, YMCA)❏ Custody/Detention Centre❏ Addiction/Rehab Centre❏ Emergency Shelter❏ Streets❏ Other:_______________________18. How long were you there?❏ Less than 3 months❏ 4-6 months❏ 7-12 months❏ More than one year19. What were your reasons for leaving? (Check as many as apply)❏ Still there ❏ Dispute with landlord ❏ Fighting & Arguing❏ Evicted ❏ Conflict with another resident with Parents/Family❏ Felt unsafe ❏ Conflict with roommate ❏ Completed Program❏ Loneliness ❏ Found another place ❏ Discharged from❏ Needed more ❏ Could not afford rent ProgramPersonal Space ❏ Not enough support ❏ Other:__________40Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

20. What issues do you have that may affect your ability to maintain housing? (Pleasecheck all that apply)❏ History of Abuse❏ Conflict with the law❏ Psychiatric❏ Drug Use❏ Alcohol Use❏ Anger Management❏ Pregnancy/Parenting❏ Employment❏ Education❏ Mental Health❏ Lack of Experience /Knowledge to live independantly❏ Physical Condition (Please specify)_______________❏ Other (Please specify)_________________21. What type(s) of support do you need to maintain housing? (Please check all thatapply?)❏ Counselling❏ Crisis Intervention❏ Independant Living Skills (Budgeting, problem solving etc.)❏ Support for Day to Day Living❏ Accompaniment to Appointments❏ Referral to Services❏ Safety Planning❏ Assistance in Accessing Information/Resources❏ Assistance with Medication❏ Other (Please specify)___________________22. Ideally, what type of housing would you prefer? (Please select your top two choices)❏ rooming house❏ shared room❏ shared house❏ shared apartment❏ my own apartment❏ room and board❏ host home*❏ other:___________________________________________*An agency sponsored host home is an arrangement where an adult or family agrees tohave a youth stay in their home and the youth is supported by a service agency.41Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

23. I would like the building I live in to be…❏ Single gender❏ Accessible (wheelchair, visually impaired) Specify:______________________❏ Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered only❏ Single parent only❏ Youth only❏ Mixed community❏ Other:__________________________________________24. If support services were available, I would like them to be❏ on site, 24 hours per day❏ on site, during daytime only❏ off site, with regular visits❏ off site, with a phone number I can call when I need it❏ no support services❏ Other:__________________________________________________________25. If there were a number that you could call 24 hours a day where you could get advicearound housing issues such as:✓ how to get your landlord to make repairs✓ tenant rights and responsibilities✓ how to unplug a toilet✓ what to do if you have a noisy neighbouror any other questions that might come up. Do you think you would make use of thisservice?❏ Yes❏ No26. Ideally, where would this housing be located?Former city of:❏ Ottawa❏ Kanata❏ Nepean❏ Gloucester❏ Goulbourn Township❏ Cumberland Township❏ Other Where?:______________________________________27. Is there anything that we have missed in this survey, or are there any additionalcomments you would like to make?42Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002

APPENDIX EService Provider ConsultationList of Youth “Constituencies” for Dotocracy Exercise. Participantswill be asked to put dots beside categories representing youth they workwith.Youth With Mental HealthIssuesYouth Who Identify As GLBTTQYoung ParentsYouth Experiencing CulturalChallenges(Visible Minorities, Newcomers,Aboriginal, Inuit)Youth With Addictions IssuesYouth Who Are DevelopmentallyChallengedYoung Offenders/Youth FromCustodyYouth With Physical DisabilitiesYouth (For Whom The OtherIssues Don’t Apply) Who LackIndependent Living SkillsYouth not covered under any category (Please specify)If you could design or “tailor make” a housing program for the youth with whomyou work, what would it look like?Building DesignWhere would it be located?What does it look like?Dedicated or mixed?Urban, rural, suburbsCentral, East or WestApartment, rooming house, townhouses, sharedhouse, shared room, host home,Room & board, sheltersGender specific, accessible, GLBTTQ, same parent,youth vs mixed ageNumbers accommodated?Any unique features? (ie; accessible)What would not work for this population?43Reducing Youth Homelessness in OttawaTotten and Perley, 2002