Due to the current credit crisis governments and companies need to reduce their expenditures. Because welfare organizations are dependent on government subsidies and social related activities of companies, the economy cuts in expenditure have also consequences for those organizations. To ensure the continuity of the organization, youth welfare organizations have to anticipate on these developments. This research focuses on the corporate real estate of youth welfare organizations, which is often the second largest expense within an organization. The goal of this research is to develop a tool which can help a youth welfare organization to optimize their corporate real estate. Youth welfare work is ‘the – non profit – attempt by adults to offer youth in age-related organizations in the leisure sector recreational facilities, to help and to shape.’ The aim of this is to support in an efficient manner the positive development of young people, to strengthen the position of the young people in the society, to increase their changes in the society and to counter the failure of young people. This by realizing adequate, coherent and accessible recreation facilities. The primary purpose of the corporate real estate of a youth welfare organization is therefore to house leisure activities. The interpretation of the youth welfare will be at local level between the municipality and the youth welfare. To respond to the increasing diversity of target groups and therefore the more complex society, the youth welfare organizations cooperate more and more with young people. Young people are involved in the policy and the management of the facilities. Beside of that, the government will focus more on results and entrepreneurship of youth welfare work. A more entrepreneurial way of working requires also in order to the assets of a youth welfare organization.
The corporation’s real estate is in this study viewed from the perspective of the public- and corporate real estate management. The corporation’s real estate is seen as the ‘fifth resource’ by both management form. Thereby, the corporation’s real estate is seen as a way to obtain maximum added value for the business. The focus in here is on the corporation’s real estate and the needs of the organization. The main difference between the two forms of management is seeing in the fact that public real estate management is related to political purposes, which the government wants to achieve by public real estate. Thereby, the political decision can be noticed as the main form of allocation. In contrast to commercial organizations where the market can be noticed as the main form of allocation. Users of public real estate also pursue a social goal without financial profit, while commercial parties are pursuing a financial goal. However, also welfare organizations have to ensure the continuity of the organization. Therefore, financial return can be noticed as the basis to achieve the social goals.
The need to steer on financial return is thereby reinforced by the nature of user of public real estate and the current development related to public real estate. An user of public real estate is characterized as a party with a lack of financial resources to realize a property on their own. A user of public real estate is therefore dependent of stakeholders. However, also the stakeholders of public real estate have nowadays a lack of financial resource and almost no financing options. Therefore, the attitude of the stakeholders to the users of public real estate is changed. The income of youth welfare from subsidies is decreased. Thereby, the attitude to the users of public real estate become more commercial. Because of these developments, the public real estate will change a from riskless object to a strategic resource. Therefore, even youth welfare organizations will forced to professionalize and optimize their corporation’s real estate.
 The real estate of a youth welfare organization should support ‘the set of activities’ of the organization. The corporation’s real estate could be considered as optimal if there is an appropriate relationship between the ‘efficiency of the housing’ and the ‘effectiveness of the housing’. In context of a youth welfare organization, this is primary related to the leisure activities the organization houses. To optimize the efficiency of the housing a youth welfare organization can ‘reduce the amount of square meters of housing’ and ‘reduce the cost per square meter of housing’. The effectiveness of the housing is related to the output that is obtained by the corporations real estate. This relates to exploit the corporation’s real estate optimal, meaning to get in touch with (as much as possible) young people. The output, obtained by the corporation’s real estate, will be increased if the youth welfare organization get in touch with more young people in time and space. This is related to the number of activities which the organization (can) house in time and space, whereby the output of the space will be increased when the organization will increase the number of activities in time and space. Therefore, a sustainable program and a full program of activities can be seen as the primary success factor of a youth center.
Due to the growing importance of the financial performance of the corporation’s real estate, a youth welfare organization should also focus on the occupancy rate of the real estate of the organization. This in order to achieve an occupancy rate of the space which pay in an economic perspective. However, a youth welfare organization is limited in here, because of the nature of the activities of a youth welfare organization (focused on after-school activities for young people). To attain to a occupancy rate of the space which pay in an economic perspective, a youth welfare organization has to cooperate with external parties. In this view, the efficiency of the housing is at odds with the effectiveness of the housing. Related to the efficiency of the housing a youth welfare organization has to reduce the amount of assets which are related to the housing (internal program), while in perception of the effectiveness of the housing the youth welfare organization could prefer a more spacious housing in favor of the market conformity of the room (external program). This shows the tension between the efficiency and effectiveness of the housing. Based on the literature, there is prepared a roadmap, see figure 1, which can help a youth welfare organization to optimize their corporate real estate. After that, the model is tested by an existing case. With reference to both, the case and the literature, it can be concluded that the model provides a new view to the corporate real estate of youth welfare organizations. Whereby the activities aren’t only seen as a way to get in touch with young people, but also as a way to optimize the efficiency and the effectiveness of the housing of young welfare organization. Furthermore, with regard to the model it can be said that it is a general roadmap due to the wide range of activities of youth welfare work. Because of this, the roadmap is applicable to many different types of corporate real estate of youth welfare organization. Thereby, the model is with some minor adjustments maybe also applicable to other types of social property. In despite of the generality of the roadmap, the model provides sufficient guidance to the organization, thought some data could be refined. With regard to steering on the efficiency of the housing, the lack of benchmark data is miserable. Benchmark data would help to control the costs and to stimulate the professionalization of the management of the real estate of youth welfare organizations.
With regard to the youth welfare policy can be concluded that it is important for youth welfare organizations to act on a more commercial way. Both, the literature and the case, emerges that it is difficult for a youth welfare organization to act on a more commercial way because of the nature of the activities of a youth welfare organization. The government and also the youth welfare organizations themselves have to wonder if there is not a imbalance between the responsibilities and risks of the housing of a youth welfare organization and the autonomy and discretion that is given by the government to the youth welfare organizations.