Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program Advocacy and Evaluation Report

FORGOTTEN BY THE SYSTEM
Reconnected by Community 

Advocacy and Evaluation of the Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program From community consultation to culturally grounded early intervention A call for government action 

Melbourne’s West | 2026 Delivery Cycle 

REPORT AUTHORS AND PROGRAM TEAM Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program Advocacy and Evaluation Report 

Report author 

Sherinald Shwe — Case Management, Stakeholder Engagement, Research and Program Design Lead 

Multidisciplinary program team 

• Ler Ka Paw Say — IT Systems Lead 

• Thaw Thee Htoo — Youth Engagement Lead 

• Diana Thomas — Mental Health and Wellbeing Lead 

• Paw Lwe Moo Nay Aye — Health, Nutrition and Budget Lead 

• Juliet Tennyson — Budget Lead 

• Maung Hnin Thwe — Parent and Stakeholder Engagement Lead 

• Ah Eh Soe — Parent Engagement Lead 

• Sa Hay Blut Moo Soe — Youth Coordination and Music Lead 

• Hsa Sher Blu (Moe) — Art and Youth Coordinator Lead 

• Shadow Toke — Advocacy Lead 

• Ko Yeh Talor — Employment Mentor 

• Mark Htoosaw Kunoo — Budget Lead 

• Cha Mu Wah Naw Nyo — Program Coordinator and Design, Veteran Mentor and Physical Training Lead 

Acknowledgement 

This report recognises the contribution of the youth leadership team, families, community elders, partner  organisations and the young people whose participation and feedback shaped the program and this evaluation. © 2026 Heeyersu. All rights reserved. Permission requests: info@heeyersu.com.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROGRAM TEAM 

Team Leads and Mentor Profiles 

The Youth Reconnecting Program was delivered by a community-led, multidisciplinary team whose combined expertise spanned  case management, research, program design, youth engagement, technology, physical training, wellbeing and health, budgeting,  family and stakeholder engagement, creative practice, advocacy, analysis, and employment pathways.

Report Status and Confidentiality 

This report evaluates the completed 12-week Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program and presents the advocacy case  for sustained government investment. It uses program documentation, registration and survey data, intake  information, participant comments and facilitator records, together with the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Karen Community  Project consultation evidence, de-identified case studies and the Heeyersu Community Support Group proposal.

The report is intended for government decision-makers, funders, philanthropic organisations, youth justice and  community-service providers, schools, and Heeyersu's community partners. 

The findings should be read as an evaluation of short-term reach, engagement, implementation and participant reported outcomes. The available data does not establish long-term causal effects on justice involvement, school  attendance, substance use or family functioning. 

Evidence Snapshot 

Executive Summary 

The Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program was established for young people who were disconnected, at risk of  further disengagement, or not being reached effectively by conventional services. The program combined physical  training, cultural identity, mentoring, wellbeing, creative expression, family connection, education and employment  pathways, justice awareness, shared food and practical referrals. 

The program was not conceived as a stand-alone pilot. It is the direct implementation of evidence gathered through  the former Karen Community Project (KCP). Phase 1 brought together more than 70 leaders and participants  connected to 14 Karen community and faith-based organisations. Phase 2 extended that evidence through 14  community-led consultations with young people, parents, elders, women, carers, people with disability, faith leaders  and service groups. Across both phases, the message was consistent,the community needed early intervention, safe  youth spaces, sport, culture, mentoring, leadership, legal education, employment support, family engagement and  trusted referral pathways. 

Following the community’s transition and rebranding from KCP to Heeyersu, these recommendations were translated  into the Heeyersu Community Support Group (CSG) model. The Youth Reconnecting Program is one integrated stream  within that model, alongside the Saturday Community Clinic, Elders and Leaders Visitation/Mentoring, community  legal education, community capacity building, partnership coordination and the longer-term goal of a trusted  community hub. 

This evaluation therefore examines more than 12 weekly sessions. It tests whether a community-identified solution  could be translated from consultation into practice. The findings show that it could: at least 35 young people were  formally registered, strong immediate outcomes were reported, previously hidden needs were identified and trusted  help-seeking pathways were created - despite the absence of dedicated external funding. 

The evaluation finds that the program was highly relevant to the needs of the cohort, coherent in its design and strongly  valued by the young people who completed the post-program survey. It created a trusted point of connection through  which young people could build relationships, strengthen cultural identity, discuss difficult issues and access  practical support.

COMMUNITY-FUNDED-DELIVERY 

Heeyersu advises that the program received no dedicated government, philanthropic or commissioned  funding. The 12-week program was made possible through the collective efforts of young people, families,  mentors and community members, who contributed funds, time and other resources. The program was  therefore not cost-free; its costs were largely carried by the community. The positive outcomes were  achieved despite the absence of external funding, not because the program did not require investment. 

This strengthens the evidence of local demand, ownership and trust, but it also exposes a serious equity and  sustainability issue. A program supporting young people with complex needs should not depend on those same young  people and their community to finance the response to service gaps. Community fundraising proved the model; it  should not be expected to sustain it.

Central Evaluation Finding 

The young people were not inherently hard to reach. They engaged when the pathway was culturally grounded, relational, practical and delivered by adults they trusted.

The program's strongest evidence relates to immediate outcomes. All 21 post-survey respondents reported increased  confidence. Positive response rates were 95% for relationships (19 of 20 valid responses), cultural and community  connection (20 of 21), mentor support (19 of 20) and hope for the future (20 of 21), 90% for useful life skills (19 of 21),  and 85% for better decision-making (17 of 20).

The detailed intake data also show that the program reached young people with intersecting needs. Thirteenof the 18 young people who completed a detailed intake had at least one stated support need or significant concern involving  education, employment, legal or financial issues, family circumstances, wellbeing, substance use or service  navigation. 

The program design was supported by a multidisciplinary, community-led staffing model, with dedicated functions  across case management, youth engagement, veteran mentoring and physical training, mental health and wellbeing,  family engagement, health and nutrition, creative expression, employment pathways and stakeholder engagement.  The governance documentation also set out weekly planning, debriefing, follow-up, risk oversight and continuous  improvement processes. 

The program's documented child-safe approach aligns cultural safety with the Victorian Child Safe Standards and  emphasises youth voice, family involvement, suitable staff and volunteers, reporting processes, physical and online  safety, privacy and continuous improvement. 

The main risk is sustainability. A 12-week program can build trust and demonstrate what works, but it is too short to  consolidate education, employment, legal, health or behavioural outcomes for young people with complex needs.  Ending support after trust has been established may reproduce the instability the program was designed to address.

ADVOCACY CONCLUSION 

The community has already undertaken consultation, co-design, fundraising, program delivery and initial  evaluation. The next step for government is to invest earlier, before young people experience school exclusion,  repeated police contact, court involvement, detention, family breakdown or crisis. What is now required is a  funded, accountable and multi-year early-intervention partnership, rather than another unfunded pilot or  consultation process. 

Headline findings 

• The reach was strong and locally concentrated: the current registration table contains 35 formal participant  records, providing a verified minimum reach of 35 young people; 34 of 35 registrations (97%) were from the City  of Wyndham. 

• The program has a documented community mandate. It directly responds to recommendations from Phase 1 and  Phase 2 KCP consultations across 14 Karen community, faith-based and service groups. 

• The full 12-week program was delivered without dedicated external funding. Young people and community  members raised money and contributed resources to make the program possible. This demonstrates  extraordinary ownership and unmet demand, but it is not a sustainable substitute for government or philanthropic  investment. 

• The Youth Reconnecting Program is not an isolated recreation project. It is the youth early-intervention stream of  the broader Heeyersu Community Support Group model, designed to connect youth engagement with family  support, service navigation, legal education, mentoring and warm referrals. 

• The program reached a broad age range, approximately 9 to 23 years, including children, adolescents and young  adults requiring continued youth-focused support. 

• Post-program experience was strongly positive: 100% of respondents reported greater confidence; 95% reported  positive relationships, stronger cultural/community connection, supportive mentoring and greater hope; 90%  reported useful life skills; and 85% reported better decision-making. Denominators varied from 20 to 21 because  some items were unanswered 

• The program created a trusted help-seeking pathway. Young people wrote that they had people to talk to and  could ask for help when needed. 

• Culture operated as a core engagement and protective mechanism, not an additional activity. 

• Boxing and physical training were the most frequently selected activities and functioned as a gateway to routine,  discipline, self-regulation and mentoring. 

• Detailed intake records showed hidden and intersecting needs that were unlikely to be identified through a  recreation-only or referral-only model. 

• The evidence supports continuation and strengthening of the model, but the current data system is not yet  sufficient to verify long-term outcomes or the program team's estimate that approximately 80% of the wider  cohort were justice-involved or disengaged from mainstream services. 

• The evidence supports government investment with rigorous evaluation. It does not yet prove reduced offending  or reoffending; it demonstrates the precursor outcomes on which prevention depends; engagement, trust,  belonging, help-seeking, positive relationships, future orientation and connection to support.

1. Program Overview 

The Youth Reconnecting Program was a 12-week, community-led, culturally safe, trauma-informed and strengths based model for young people who may be disengaged from school, family, community, services or positive  pathways. 

The program included a Veteran Mentor and Physical Training Lead as a consistent presence throughout the 12 weeks.  The role was designed to translate discipline, lived experience, service, resilience, teamwork and values-based  leadership into practical learning, rather than punishment. 

From KCP Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultation to Heeyersu action 

The Youth Reconnecting Program was developed in response to evidence gathered directly from the community,  rather than introduced as an external or pre-designed intervention. Beginning in 2025, Karen community leaders  formed the Karen Community Project to understand barriers to justice, safety and service access, and to identify  community-led solutions. The consultation process deliberately used trusted organisations, faith groups, leaders and  bilingual facilitation because participants reported greater safety and willingness to speak in culturally familiar  settings. 

Phase 1 engaged more than 70 leaders and participants connected to 14 Karen organisations and included young  people, youth leaders, parents, elders, faith leaders, people with disability and people with lived experience of the  justice system. Phase 2 then involved 14 further community-led group consultations. The consistency across these  different settings gave the program a strong community mandate, young people needed a safe place combining sport,  culture, trusted adults, legal knowledge, wellbeing, leadership, education and employment pathways.

The Youth Reconnecting Program within the Community Support Group model 

The consolidated community report positioned Heeyersu as a Community Support Group model, a culturally safe first  point of contact that strengthens, rather than replaces, legal, youth, health, settlement, education and government  services. The Youth Reconnecting Program is one stream in this integrated model. This is important because young  people’s needs do not fit neatly into one service category. A conversation during physical training may reveal school  disengagement, a legal issue, family stress, alcohol or other drug concerns, housing instability or uncertainty about  employment. The wider CSG model provides the pathway for follow-up. 

Evaluation implication: the Youth Reconnecting Program should be funded and assessed as part of an integrated  early-intervention system, not reduced to a stand-alone sport or recreation activity. Its value lies partly in the trusted  pathways it creates into family support, legal assistance, education, employment, health and service navigation. 

Program structure

Twelve-week content sequence 

The weekly plans show a repeated rhythm of movement, themed learning, food, creativity, reflection and informal  connection. This repetition was a design strength: it created predictability while allowing each week to address a  different area of development. 

Community-funded delivery 

Unlike many short-term youth pilots, the Youth Reconnecting Program was not supported by a government grant,  philanthropic grant or commissioned service contract. Young people and community members came together to  raise the money required to deliver the 12-week program. 

The lack of external funding did not mean that the program was delivered without cost. Instead, the financial  responsibility and delivery were carried by a community already responding to unmet youth need. Community  fundraising demonstrated legitimacy, urgency and collective responsibility. It should be recognised as community  co-investment and evidence of commitment, rather than treated as a sustainable funding model. 

Resource limitations also constrained the program’s ability to provide intensive follow-up, formal case coordination,  transport support, specialist input, comprehensive data collection and longer-term outcome monitoring. The results  in this report therefore show what the model achieved under significant resource constraints and may understate  what could be achieved with stable funding.

2. Evaluation Purpose and Questions 

The evaluation was designed to determine whether the program reached its intended cohort, was delivered through a  coherent and safe model, produced meaningful short-term outcomes, and provides a credible basis for continued  investment. 

Evaluation questions 

1. Relevance: Did the program respond to the needs and barriers experienced by young people in Melbourne's  West? 

2. Reach: Who engaged, where did they live, and did the program reach young people experiencing disconnection  or multiple support needs? 

3. Implementation: Was the program model coherent, culturally grounded, multidisciplinary and aligned with its  intended 12-week design? 

4. Engagement and safety: Did young people experience the program as welcoming, supportive, culturally  connected and safe? 

5. Immediate outcomes: Did participants report changes in confidence, relationships, cultural connection, life  skills, decision-making and hope? 

6. Pathways and support: Did the program identify needs and connect young people to practical assistance or  external services? 

7. Sustainability: What is required to retain engagement and build longer-term outcomes? 8. Resourcing and equity: What did community-funded delivery reveal about local ownership, feasibility and the  need for sustainable external investment? 

3. Evaluation Methodology 

A mixed-methods, practice-based and contribution-focused evaluation was used. The approach combined a process  evaluation of program design and implementation; an outcome evaluation of participant-reported change and  identified support needs; and an evidence-lineage analysis tracing how Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultation  recommendations were translated into the Heeyersu Community Support Group model and the Youth Reconnecting  Program. 

3.1 Data sources 

The evaluation also considered Heeyersu’s program information confirming that delivery was not externally funded  and that young people and community members raised money and contributed resources to support the 12 weeks.

12 

3.2 Analysis 

• Descriptive quantitative analysis was applied to participant counts, registration characteristics and survey  response distributions. 

• Open-text survey responses were reviewed thematically, with repeated ideas grouped into themes such as  belonging, culture, mentoring, help-seeking, leadership, respect and hope. 

• Detailed intake records were coded at an aggregate level across education, employment, legal, financial, family,  wellbeing, substance-use and service-navigation needs. 

• Documentary analysis assessed the program's internal coherence, governance, staffing, safety framework and  alignment between weekly content and intended outcomes. 

• Contribution analysis mapped the Phase 1 and Phase 2 recommendations against the program design to assess  whether the delivered model responded to the needs the community had identified. 

• An advocacy and investment analysis considered the program’s place within the Community Support Group  model and the case for government reinvestment in prevention, while distinguishing demonstrated short-term  outcomes from longer-term outcomes that remain to be tested. 

• A resourcing and sustainability analysis considered the absence of external funding, community fundraising and  contributed resources, and the implications for equity, scale, workforce continuity and continuation.

• Triangulation was used to compare survey results, intake findings, program design and participant comments. A finding was considered stronger when it appeared across more than one evidence source. 

3.3 Evaluation framework 

The program was assessed across relevance, reach, design coherence, implementation, cultural safety,  safeguarding, short-term effectiveness, service connection, sustainability and evidence quality. Ratings are  evaluative judgements for this report and are not external accreditation, community ownership, resourcing equity and  funding sustainability. 

3.4 Ethical and child-safe approach 

• All findings are reported in aggregate, and no personal identifiers are included. 

• Open-text comments are quoted anonymously and only where they do not reveal identity. • Detailed case information has been converted into broad themes or composite descriptions. 

• Confidential interview records were treated as restricted material. The public report relies on aggregate themes  and de-identified case-study evidence rather than identifiable interview content. 

• The evaluation recognises that disclosure is voluntary and that an absence of recorded need does not establish  an absence of need. 

• The interpretation is consistent with the program's no-pressure, trauma-informed and culturally safe practice  principles. 

3.5 Methodological limitations 

• The 35 young people represented in the current registration data were not all represented in every evaluation  dataset. 

• The current data include 35 registration records, 27 substantive pre-survey responses, 21 post-survey responses  and 18 detailed intakes. 

• The pre- and post-surveys were anonymous and could not be matched participant by participant. 

• Survey respondents may have been more engaged or more satisfied than non-respondents. 

• The post-survey measured participant perceptions rather than independently verified behavioural outcomes. 

• Attendance, retention, dosage, referral completion and follow-up outcomes were not available in a consistent  dataset. 

• The supplied session plans demonstrate intended delivery; they do not by themselves verify that every  component was delivered exactly as planned. 

• The available evidence does not establish long-term effects on school attendance, employment, justice contact,  substance use, family relationships or mental health. 

• The Phase 1 and Phase 2 reports are qualitative community consultation evidence, not population-level  statistical studies. Their strength lies in the consistency of findings across 14 community settings. 

• No formal economic evaluation or independently validated avoided-cost analysis was undertaken. The report  therefore makes a policy case for investment and evaluation, but does not claim a proven financial saving or  reduction in offending or reoffending. 

• The evaluation did not include audited financial statements or a complete cost and in-kind contribution ledger.  The community-funded status is based on Heeyersu’s program information and is not assigned a dollar value in  this report.

4. Program Logic and Theory of Change 

The program's theory of change can be stated simply: when young people are offered a culturally grounded, safe and  consistent environment that combines physical activity, trusted mentoring, youth voice, practical learning, family and  community connection, and supported pathways, they are more likely to engage, disclose needs, build confidence,  strengthen belonging and take positive next steps. 

The wider CSG theory of change adds a second layer: when the trusted youth program is connected to family support,  community navigation, legal education, elders, schools and formal service partners, early engagement is more likely  to lead to sustained support rather than another unsupported referral. 

Important evaluation distinction 

The available evidence supports the immediate outputs and short-term outcomes. Longer-term outcomes remain intended outcomes and require follow-up measurement.

5. Implementation Evaluation 

5.1 Coherent and differentiated weekly design 

The program pack shows a clear progression from safety and identity toward self-regulation, confidence, health,  relationships, leadership, pathways, justice awareness, community contribution and future planning. The sequence  is developmentally coherent, young people are not asked to discuss consequences or future goals before the program  has invested in safety, trust and identity. 

The weekly plans also show practical adaptation. Cultural food, dance, music, creative writing, floral and food-making  activities, guest speakers, rights education and group challenges were used to make abstract themes concrete and  engaging. 

5.2 Multidisciplinary delivery 

The governance and staffing model distributed responsibility across case management, stakeholder engagement,  youth outreach, veteran mentoring, physical training, mental health and wellbeing, health and nutrition, family  engagement, creative expression and employment pathways. This design reduced reliance on a single worker and  increased the program's ability to respond to multiple needs. 

The delivery team brought together 14 leads and mentors across case management, research and design, IT systems,  youth engagement, veteran mentoring and physical training, mental health, health and nutrition, budgeting, parent  and stakeholder engagement, music, art, advocacy, report analysis and employment pathways. This breadth allowed  engagement activities, risk awareness, family support, referrals, accountability and future planning to operate as one  coordinated model rather than separate interventions.

A key strength was the connection between weekly group delivery and support outside the session. The governance  model described intake, needs identification, attendance monitoring, family liaison, referral coordination, individual  follow-up, team debriefing and communication with schools and external services.

5.3 Cultural safety and youth voice 

Cultural identity was embedded across the model through language, food, music, dance, storytelling, family and  community leadership. Young people were also invited to influence program expectations and activities, and the  facilitator principles protected the right to pass or decline public sharing. 

5.4 Safeguarding 

The Child Safe Standards Policy documented commitments to zero tolerance of abuse, racism and harmful  behaviour; cultural safety; youth empowerment; family involvement; staff and volunteer suitability; complaints and  reporting; physical and online safety; privacy; and continuous improvement. 

This provides a credible safeguarding foundation. However, policy quality is not the same as implementation  assurance. Future evaluation should document staff induction, Working with Children Checks, risk assessments,  incidents, complaints, consent, supervision and policy review in a routine compliance register. 

5.5 Implementation fidelity 

The documentary evidence indicates strong fidelity at the level of program philosophy and intended structure.  Repeated components—welcome, physical training, themed learning, shared food, group reflection and mentoring— appear consistently across the program pack and weekly plans. 

Actual delivery fidelity cannot be fully verified from the available records. The session-plan set contains some version control issues, including inconsistent week labels and repeated template content, and the evaluation did not receive  a complete session-by-session implementation log. This is an administrative weakness rather than evidence that  delivery was poor, but it limits the strength of conclusions about exactly what was delivered each week. 

5.6 Community-funded delivery 

The program was delivered without dedicated external funding. Young people and community members mobilised to  raise money and sustain delivery. This is a significant implementation achievement because it shows that the model  was not imposed on the community: participants, families and community leaders considered the need urgent  enough to invest in collectively. 

The evaluation does not treat successful fundraising as proof that the program can continue unfunded. Dependence  on community fundraising creates uncertainty, places pressure on young people and families, limits workforce and  follow-up capacity, and risks interruption just as trust begins to develop. 

Evaluation judgement: community fundraising was a strength of mobilisation, ownership and collective responsibility,  while the absence of external investment was a major implementation constraint. The community should be  recognised for proving the model, not expected to carry its ongoing costs.

6. Reach and Participant Profile 

The current registration table contains 34 formal participant records. This provides a verified minimum reach of 34  young people. A final reconciliation with session attendance is still recommended to determine whether any  additional young people attended without completing registration. 

Geographic reach 

More than half of registrations were from Wyndham Vale or the neighbouring Jubilee area. This concentration  demonstrates local demand and supports future delivery in an accessible Wyndham location. The broad age range  also indicates that transition-age young adults remain in need of culturally grounded youth support beyond age 18. 

Reasons for joining and support requested 

Young people joined because of friends, family encouragement, community connection, motivation, a desire to meet  others, and the need for help. Employment was a recurring priority. Pre-survey respondents also identified housing,  Centrelink, financial, legal, health, immigration and document-understanding needs.

Evaluation interpretation 

The program functioned as a low-barrier entry point. A  young person could initially attend for friends, exercise or food and later access mentoring, legal information, employment support or another service pathway.

7. Participant-Reported Outcomes 

7.1 Pre-program position 

The baseline pattern is important. Most respondents reported some connection to community, culture and trusted  people, but confidence about the future was lower. Ten of the 24 substantive respondents did not clearly express  future confidence, and five did not clearly indicate that they knew where to seek help. 

7.2 Post-program outcomes 

The post-program response pattern was strongly positive. One negative response was recorded across the seven  outcome questions, one participant disagreed that they had built positive relationships. Other non-positive  responses were neutral or unanswered. The strongest conclusion is that the program generated credible short-term  evidence of confidence, connection, mentor support, life skills, decision awareness and hope among respondents. 

The results must not be described as a matched pre-post improvement because respondents were anonymous and  the questions were not identical. The pattern is nevertheless consistent with the program's intended short-term  outcomes.

8. Key Themes from the Evaluation 

Ten interconnected themes emerged from the participant comments, survey patterns, intake data and program  design. 

Theme 1: Trust and belonging were the gateway to engagement 

Young people described Heeyersu as “friendship,” “family,” “a safe place,” and a place where they could spend time  with people who cared about them. These comments show that the program's value was relational, not transactional. 

The program did not begin with assessment, correction or referral. It began with welcome, food, movement, names,  laughter, repeated contact and the right not to disclose. This created the conditions in which young people could later  discuss needs. 

“A place where I can hang out with friends and people that I care about and [who] care  about me.” 

Evaluation judgement: belonging was not only an outcome. It was the principal mechanism that enabled  participation and help-seeking. 

Theme 2: Culture was a method of engagement and a protective factor 

Cultural food, identity activities, music, dance, storytelling and community mentors were embedded across the  program. Twenty of the 21 post-survey respondents (95%) reported feeling more connected to culture and  community. 

“The PT and cultural activities made me feel very good about myself ... our cultural food  made me learn a lot.” 

Young people also described the program as helping them become “more Knyaw.” This suggests that cultural  connection strengthened identity and belonging while making the program feel relevant and owned by the community. 

Evaluation judgement: culture was not an optional adaptation to a mainstream model; it was a core active  ingredient. 

Theme 3: Physical activity created a pathway into regulation, discipline and mentoring 

Fifteen of the 21 post-survey respondents selected boxing or physical training as an activity that helped them most.  The program pack intentionally linked movement with routine, emotional regulation, effort, teamwork, self-control  and confidence. 

Physical activity allowed young people to participate before they were ready to speak. It also gave mentors a practical  way to model boundaries, persistence and respectful leadership. 

Evaluation judgement: the physical component should be retained, but its effectiveness depended on being  integrated with culture, food, reflection and mentoring rather than delivered as a stand-alone sport program. 

Theme 4: Consistent mentors turned awareness of services into real help-seeking 

Nineteen of the 20 respondents who answered the mentor-support item (95%) agreed that mentors supported them  well. Young people wrote that they had people to help them, could ask for help and had people to talk to. 

“I learnt that I have people to help me if I need.” 

A list of services is not a pathway when a young person does not trust the system, know what to say or believe they  will be understood. The program's mentors acted as trusted intermediaries who could explain, introduce, follow up  and remain alongside the young person.

Evaluation judgement: relationship continuity was one of the program's strongest assets and should be funded as  core service infrastructure, not treated as volunteer goodwill.

Theme 5: Confidence and hope opened future pathways 

Fifty-eight per cent of substantive pre-survey respondents expressed confidence about their future. At post-survey,  all 21 respondents reported increased confidence and 20 of 21 (95%) reported greater hope. 

Young people linked the program to leadership, goals, employment, culture and having someone to speak with. The  pathway sessions also included education, training, apprenticeships, employment skills, guest speakers and  practical next-step planning. 

Evaluation judgement: the program produced strong evidence of future orientation, but actual education and  employment outcomes require follow-up at 3, 6 and 12 months. 

Theme 6: Complex needs became visible through relationships 

Eleven of 16 detailed intake records contained at least one stated legal, educational, employment, family, wellbeing,  substance-use or service-navigation need. The records showed that “disengagement” was rarely a single issue. 

A participant missing school might also experience family conflict or financial pressure. A young person not working  or studying might also carry caring responsibilities or substance-use concerns. A young person may be deeply  affected by a family member's justice involvement without being personally charged. 

Composite youth experience 

Across the intake records, young people were balancing school or work uncertainty, family responsibilities, legal or financial stress, sleep and wellbeing concerns, and the effects of justice or substance use within the family. The program gave these issues somewhere to surface together rather than sending the young person to separate systems.

Evaluation judgement:the program functioned as an early-identification and navigation model, not simply a weekly  activity. 

Theme 7: Accountability was delivered with care rather than shame 

The program repeatedly addressed respect, choices, consequences, rights, repair and responsibility. Veteran  mentoring and justice-awareness content were framed around pause, self-control, service and safer decisions. 

The facilitator principle of “accountability with care” is significant. Young people were encouraged to understand  consequences without being reduced to their behaviour or previous contact with systems. 

Evaluation judgement: this approach is particularly relevant for young people who have experienced punitive  responses or expect judgement from adults. 

Theme 8: Youth voice and creativity increased ownership 

Young people were invited to co-create group agreements, identify what they wanted from the program, write lyrics,  share music and art, reflect on leadership and recommend improvements. 

Their suggestions were practical: a larger venue, more activities, more involvement and excursions. Most did not  request a different model; they requested more opportunities within it. 

Evaluation judgement: youth voice was present in program activities and evaluation, but future delivery should  establish a formal youth advisory role in design, review and governance.

Theme 9: Community investment proved demand, but exposed systemic  underinvestment 

The program was not externally funded. Young people and community members raised money to make the 12 weeks  possible. This created shared ownership and demonstrated that the program addressed a need the community  considered immediate and important. 

The capacity of a community to mobilise should not become a reason for government, funders or service systems to  withdraw. The burden of filling youth-service gaps should not fall on young people, families and community leaders.  Community fundraising can begin or test a model; it cannot reliably fund sustained mentoring, specialist support,  case coordination, safeguarding, transport, evaluation and long-term follow-up. 

Evaluation judgement:the community-funded delivery model is evidence of commitment, trust and unmet demand.  It is not evidence of financial sustainability. 

Theme 10: The program was community evidence translated into action 

The design closely mirrors the priorities identified in both consultation phases: safe spaces, sport, culture, mentoring,  leadership, mental health and wellbeing, legal education, family connection, education and employment pathways,  and trusted adults. This alignment is not incidental. The program was created because the community had already  documented what was missing and what young people said would help. 

This strengthens the program’s relevance and legitimacy. It also changes the advocacy question. Government is not  being asked to fund an idea generated without evidence. It is being asked to stabilise, strengthen and evaluate a  solution that emerged from broad community consultation, was co-designed by community and youth leaders, was  delivered through community investment and produced strong immediate participant-reported outcomes. 

Evaluation judgement: there is strong qualitative evidence that the program responds directly to an established  community mandate and fills a gap identified consistently across the 14 consultation settings.

9. Advocacy Case: Government Reinvestment in Early  Intervention 

The central advocacy finding is that the community has already carried out the work usually requested before  investment: it identified the problem, consulted widely, co-designed a response, raised funds, mobilised a  multidisciplinary team, delivered the program and collected initial evaluation evidence. Repeating consultation  without resourcing implementation would deepen consultation fatigue and shift responsibility back onto the  community. 

9.1 Why earlier investment matters 

The Phase 1 and Phase 2 evidence and the de-identified case studies show how risk can escalate when early support  is absent: school disengagement can combine with peer influence; first police contact can occur without clear follow up; parents may not understand police, child protection or court processes; young people may distrust formal  services; and legal, family, housing, substance-use and wellbeing pressures may compound one another. By the time  a system responds, the issue may be more serious, more expensive and more harmful. 

The Youth Reconnecting Program intervenes at an earlier point by strengthening the protective conditions around a  young person: a safe place, cultural identity, trusted adults, structure, emotional regulation, positive peers, family  connection, future goals and supported pathways. The present evaluation does not prove reduced offending or  reoffending. It does show that these foundational conditions can be created and that young people will engage with  them.

9.2 What government reinvestment should mean 

• In this report, government reinvestment means allocating sustained public resources to locally governed  prevention and community navigation before crisis and deeper justice involvement, while maintaining access to  statutory and specialist services. It is not a request for Heeyersu to replace youth justice, legal, health or  education systems. It is a request to fund the trusted bridge that enables young people and families to reach those  systems earlier and more safely. 

• Multi-year funding for weekly youth engagement, outreach, mentoring, family contact and follow-up. 

• Paid bicultural and community-led roles across youth coordination, case navigation, wellbeing, employment,  family engagement and program leadership. 

• Formal referral partnerships and feedback loops with youth justice, schools, legal services, health, alcohol and  other drug services, employment and settlement providers. 

• Accessible venue, transport, food, physical activities, cultural activities and youth-led excursions. 

• Strong safeguarding, supervision, staff development, data systems and independent or partnered evaluation. 

• Community accountability through regular reporting to the 14 participating groups and structured youth and  family I input. 

9.3 Current investment pathway 

The current Heeyersu CSG proposal identifies a 12-month investment of $263,000 for the Youth Reconnecting  Program within a $720,000 integrated Community Support Group model. These figures are proposal estimates and  should be finalised through detailed costing and government due diligence. They nevertheless show that the youth  stream requires funded staffing, delivery and operating capacity - not only activity costs.

9.4 Impact pathway and accountability 

A funded next phase should be judged against a transparent impact pathway. Immediate outcomes already evidenced  include engagement, confidence, relationships, culture, mentor support, hope and identification of needs. A 12- month funded phase should test retention, referral completion, education and employment pathways, family  engagement, wellbeing and safer decision-making. Longer-term claims relating to justice contact, reoffending or  avoided system costs should be made only after matched longitudinal data and appropriate economic analysis are  available. 

A CALL FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION 

Fund a 12-month Heeyersu CSG development and evaluation phase, with a pathway to multi-year investment.  Recognise the Youth Reconnecting Program as community-led early-intervention infrastructure. Require strong  outcome measurement and community accountability, but do not make the community repeatedly prove need  through unpaid consultation and fundraising.

10. Overall Evaluation Judgement

Overall conclusion 

The program achieved its immediate purpose of engaging young people, strengthening connection and confidence, and creating a trusted pathway into support. It provides a credible model for continued investment but should  move into a longer delivery and evaluation phase before  claims are made about long-term system outcomes.

11. What worked and what should be strengthened 

Demonstrated strengths 

• A culturally legitimate, community-led point of entry. 

• A consistent weekly structure that balanced routine and flexibility. 

• Physical training used constructively for regulation, confidence and teamwork. 

• Trusted mentors and a multidisciplinary team rather than a single-worker model. 

• Cultural food, creativity and identity integrated into delivery. 

• A no-pressure, strengths-based and trauma-informed approach. 

• Practical education, employment and justice-awareness content. 

• Family and stakeholder engagement linked to individual support. 

• Strong participant-reported experience and immediate outcomes. 

• Exceptional youth and community mobilisation that raised the money required to deliver an otherwise unfunded  program. 

• Direct alignment with recommendations from Phase 1 and Phase 2 consultations, demonstrating that community  voice was translated into program design. 

• Clear integration within the Heeyersu Community Support Group model rather than stand-alone activity delivery. 

Areas requiring strengthening 

• Formalise the distinction between young people engaged, registered, regularly attending and completing the  program. 

• Introduce consistent attendance and dosage data for every session. 

• Use a unique anonymous participant code to match registration, pre-survey, post-survey, intake, referrals and  follow-up. 

• Complete baseline surveys before or during the first session. 

• Standardise intake criteria and record the denominator for all headline percentages. 

• Create a referral tracker recording referral date, service, warm handover, attendance, outcome and follow-up. 

• Resolve version-control issues in session plans and maintain a final delivered-session record. 

• Document safeguarding implementation, including checks, training, risk assessments, complaints, incidents  and consent. 

• Measure education, employment, service engagement, wellbeing and justice outcomes at 3, 6 and 12 months. 

• Establish formal youth and family participation in program governance and evaluation. 

• Develop a fully costed program budget and record community fundraising, donated resources and contributed  time so the true cost and level of community co-investment are visible. 

• Develop a formal government investment and accountability framework linking funding, implementation  milestones, community reporting, youth voice and outcome measurement. 

• Undertake independent economic evaluation before publishing claims about avoided justice-system costs or  return on investment.

12. Recommendations 

1. Government should fund an immediate 12-month Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting development and evaluation  phase, with a pathway to multi-year investment. The first 12 weeks were delivered through youth and community  fundraising; continuation must not depend on transferring the financial burden back to young people, families  and volunteer leaders. Weekly delivery should be combined with outreach, individual mentoring, family  engagement, referral navigation and follow-up. 

2. Establish a dedicated culturally grounded Youth Navigator or Case Coordination role. The role should bridge  youth justice, legal services, schools, employment, health, housing, Centrelink, child and family services and  alcohol and other drug support. 

3. Retain boxing, physical training and movement as core engagement methods. They should remain integrated with  mentoring, cultural learning, reflection and practical pathway work. 

4. Protect continuity of trusted mentors. Funding should recognise preparation, contact between sessions, family  communication, debriefing and follow-up as core work. 

5. Develop formal partner protocols. Agreements should specify referral contacts, response times, warm  handovers, feedback loops, privacy and escalation for priority needs. 

6. Strengthen family and caregiver support. Provide culturally accessible information, family conversations and  navigation assistance where safe and appropriate. 

7. Create a youth advisory group. Young people should help review content, choose activities, advise on  communication and assess whether the program remains relevant and safe. 

8. Upgrade the evaluation system. Use matched anonymous data, consistent attendance, outcome measures,  referral tracking and longitudinal follow-up. 

9. Undertake an annual child-safe implementation audit. Review staff and volunteer checks, induction, supervision,  online communication, transport, consent, complaints and incident procedures. 

10. Establish the program as a justice-reinvestment demonstration: invest before crisis, track outcomes  transparently and test whether sustained community-led engagement improves retention, service connection,  education, employment, wellbeing and safer decision-making over 12 to 36 months. 

11. Recognise and value the community contribution. Record funds raised, donated goods and services, contributed  time and other in-kind support to establish the true cost of the pilot and demonstrate the level of community co investment already made. 

12. Fund the Youth Reconnecting Program as an integrated stream of the Heeyersu Community Support Group  model. Investment should connect the youth program with the Saturday Community Clinic, Elders and Leaders  mentoring, community legal education, family support, capacity building and partnership coordination. 

13. Resource paid Karen and bicultural workforce pathways. Government and service partners should fund youth  engagement, case navigation, wellbeing, family liaison, employment mentoring, data and governance roles rather  than relying on unpaid community labour. 

14. Create a government-community partnership and accountability mechanism. Heeyersu, young people, families,  the 14 groups and relevant agencies should review progress, referrals, barriers and emerging needs at least  quarterly. 

15. Respond to the consultation with action rather than further extraction of community knowledge. Any additional  consultation should have a clear decision purpose, remuneration, feedback loop and published response  explaining what will be funded, changed or progressed.

13. Recommended methodology for the next delivery cycle 

The next phase should retain a mixed-methods approach but strengthen participant matching, implementation  records and longitudinal outcomes. 

Recommended qualitative methods 

• Two youth focus groups facilitated by a trusted person who is not the main mentor. 

• Optional one-to-one interviews for young people who prefer private participation. 

• A small number of consent-based participant journey studies using composite or fully de-identified reporting. 

• Family and caregiver interviews where safe and appropriate. 

• Facilitator reflective logs and structured debrief summaries. 

• Partner feedback regarding referral accessibility, responsiveness and service coordination.

14. Conclusion 

The strongest conclusion from this evaluation is that the Youth Reconnecting Program was not an isolated project. It  was the practical result of a community-led evidence process. Phase 1 and Phase 2 documented the need. The  Community Support Group model created the structure. Young people and community leaders then raised funds and  delivered the response. 

The Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program reached young people who were looking for friendship, motivation,  culture, practical help and a future pathway. Some were also navigating school disengagement, unemployment, legal  and financial stress, substance-use concerns, family instability and the effects of justice-system involvement. 

The program did not ask young people to enter through the language of risk, diagnosis or service eligibility. It gave them  a culturally familiar place to move, eat, create, talk, learn and build relationships. 

That approach produced strong immediate evidence. Young people reported confidence, positive relationships,  cultural connection, supportive mentors, useful learning and greater hope. They described Heeyersu as family,  friendship and safety. 

The evaluation does not establish that 12 weeks changed long-term justice, education or health outcomes. It  establishes something that comes first: young people engaged, trusted, participated, disclosed needs and began to  identify positive next steps. 

The impact is more significant because it was achieved without dedicated external funding. Young people and  community members raised the money needed to run the program. This should be recognised as evidence of need,  trust and local ownership - not used to normalise community-financed service delivery. 

The community has already demonstrated its commitment. Government and philanthropic investment should now  meet that commitment and provide the stability required to protect the relationships, outcomes and pathways  created during the first 12 weeks. 

This closes a loop that too often remains unfinished: community consultation produces a report, but not the  investment required to act. Heeyersu moved from evidence to action without waiting for a funded service contract.  Government should now move from acknowledgement to reinvestment. 

The advocacy ask is not for another taskforce, another short pilot or another round of unpaid consultation. It is for a  funded and accountable early-intervention partnership that recognises community leadership as essential  infrastructure, connects young people and families to formal services earlier and tests longer-term outcomes  rigorously. 

The evidence should be represented honestly, the program has demonstrated reach, trust, engagement and strong  immediate participant-reported outcomes. It has not yet proved reduced offending, reoffending or system savings.  That is the reason to invest in a longer evaluated phase - not a reason to withdraw support before the model has had  the time and resources required to show sustained impact. 

The community has already identified the need, designed the response and demonstrated what is possible. The next  responsibility belongs to government and partners;invest early, walk beside the community and sustain the pathway  long enough for trust and hope to become lasting change. Forgotten by systems does not mean without value.  Disengaged from services does not mean without hope. Every young person has a story, strengths and potential. 

Final message 

These young people were not unreachable. They were reached through culture, consistency, practical support and community leadership. The next responsibility is to sustain the pathway long enough for early trust and hope to become lasting change.

Appendix A. Evidence and confidence matrix

Appendix B. Source documents reviewed 

• Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program: Weeks 1-12 Program Pack.

• Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program: Program Governance and Staffing. 

• Heeyersu Child Safe Standards Policy: Youth Reconnecting Program & Community Support Activities. 

• Weekly session plans supplied for Weeks 1-10. 

• Youth program team role biographies. 

• Airtable: Youth Reconnecting registration table. 

• Airtable: Youth Reconnecting pre-program survey. 

• Airtable: Youth Reconnecting post-program survey. 

• Airtable: detailed youth intake table. 

• Karen Community Project: Access to Justice Community Leaders Consultation Report (Phase 1). 

• Karen Community Project / Heeyersu: Consolidated Overall Report from 14 community, faith-based and service  groups (Phase 2 evidence base). 

• Appendix E: De-identified Case Studies. Heeyersu Community Support Group Model and DJCS briefing proposal. 

• Confidential community interviews reviewed for thematic context only; no identifiable material reproduced.

REPORT CONTACT AND ENQUIRIES 

Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program Advocacy and Evaluation Report 

Suggested reference 

Heeyersu. (2026). Forgotten by the System, Reconnected by Community: Heeyersu Youth Reconnecting Program  Advocacy and Evaluation Report. Melbourne's West, Victoria. 

Every young person has a story, strengths and potential.

COPYRIGHT AND PERMITTED USE 

© 2026 Heeyersu. All rights reserved. 

Rights reserved 

The original text, analysis, report structure, tables, graphics, survey presentation, program documentation, evaluation metho dology, case study compilation and visual design in this publication are protected by copyright. No part may be copied, reproduced, adapted,  translated, republished, uploaded, distributed, rebranded or incorporated into another report, funding proposal, presentation , training  resource or program document without prior written permission from Heeyersu, except where permitted by the Cop yright Act 1968 (Cth)  or another applicable law. 

Attribution and moral rights 

Attribution alone does not grant permission to reproduce or adapt this report. The report authors assert their right to be id entified as  authors and to object to false attribution or treatment of their work that prejudices their honour or reputation. Unaut horised copying,  rebranding or false attribution may infringe copyright and/or the authors' moral rights. 

Community knowledge, youth voice and cultural integrity 

This report is built from community consultation, youth participation, lived experience and cultural knowledge shared in trus t. Community  stories, de-identified case material, youth quotations and culturally grounded program content must not be extracted, reframed or reused  out of context. Any approved use must protect dignity, confidentiality, cultural integrity and the safety of young people and families. 

Third-party material 

Copyright in third-party material, including partner information, external references and contributed content, remains with the relevant  copyright owner. Permission from Heeyersu does not replace any permission required from a third party. 

Permission and authorised use 

Written permission is required for reproduction, adaptation, translation, republication, training use, commercial use, use of protected  program materials, or inclusion in another organisation's funding or policy documents. Requests must identify the material, purpose,  audience, format and intended distribution. 

Permission requests: info@heeyersu.com