LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Inquiry into Homelessness in Victoria
Ms Nina O'Brien
Organisation Name:Committee for Echuca Moama Your position or role: CEO
SURVEY QUESTIONS Drag the statements below to reorder them. In order of priority, please rank the themes you believe are most important for this inquiry into homelessness to consider:: Public housing,Services,Family violence,Rough sleeping,Indigenous people,Housing affordability,Mental health,Employment
What best describes your interest in our Inquiry? (select all that apply) : An advocacy body
Are there any additional themes we should consider? Cross-border government planning considerations for communities like Echuca Moama
YOUR SUBMISSION Submission: Please find attached a letter of Correspondence outlining our primary concerns relating to Homelessness in the Echuca Moama region, in addition to a Monash University report commissioned by the Committee for Echuca Moama, published May 2017, but still pertinent at present.
Do you have any additional comments or suggestions?: Thank-you for the opportunity to submit this to government for consideration.
FILE ATTACHMENTS File1: 5e30e1383e21f-C4EM_Homelessness_VicGovParlEnqu_28Jan2020.docx File2: 5e30e1383ef53-Echuca Moama Homelessness FULL Report Final MAY.pdf File3:
Signature: Nina O'Brien
1 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127
28 January 2020 Ms. Fiona Patten MP Chairperson Legislative Council, Legal and Social Issues Committee Parliament of Victoria Parliament House, Spring Street EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Dear Ms. Patten,
Re: Inquiry into Homelessness in Victoria
On behalf of our diverse industry-based members; The Committee for Echuca Moama (C4EM) are pleased to submit the following feedback in relation to the complex nature of homelessness in Echuca Moama.
C4EM have been concerned about and have advocated for the issues surrounding homelessness in Echuca Moama since our inception in 2011.
In mid to late 2015; C4EM embarked upon a research project to quantify the amount of homelessness in the local region. The Monash University report is attached.
In short; it found a localized data set to quantify the size and nature of local homelessness issue was basically impossible to produce. This was due to many factors such as community sector service providers protecting their data sources to protect funding streams, community organisations don’t have platforms or capacity to collect and analyse data, homeless people don’t have avenues to contribute data, and that government data does not drill down into very specific areas and that what data is collected when released, is old and again does not address the transient nature of the homeless.
Since that time; a variety of community endeavors have attempted to address these issues through a dedicated network of service providers and local charities.
The issue remains that while many people have a role to play, no singular organisation takes the lead to address both the short- and long-term issues that we still experience.
This results in: • limited ability by local community organisations to seek funding, or undertake advocacy to address the need without solid data, • services and support that are fragmented and very different depending on where the person seeking support is located by virtue of our cross-border, dual state, one community makeup of the Echuca Moama region, • Short term fixes while the long-term issues remain. While local collaboration between service providers is positive; but remain highly limited in their ability to support people due to limited budgets, strict eligibility criteria, reliance on volunteers, and lack of suitable housing stock to place people into.
Anecdotally we are aware of some funding allocations that do not meet the target recipients given the variable capacity of local organisations to deliver the services.
2 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127
Changing scale and nature of Homelessness According to the ABS Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2011 to 2016 Comparison (Published in March 2018) the number of homeless people number:
2011 2016 # increase % increase Campaspe (S) 49 121 72 147% Murray (A) 10 0 -10 Total People 67 139 72 147% Anecdotally; there are far more than 0 people who are homeless in the Murray (Moama) region; indicating that quality of data collection, remains a significant issue in quantifying the nature of the issue.
Social, economic and policy factors that impact on homelessness
• Rising rent of 3% in past year alone. Median private unit rent is $280 per week. Given Newstart for a single person is $279.50 per week; this often means people get stuck in short-term public housing and find it impossible to transition to the local private market. • Access to suitable housing stock in the private market. The vacancy rate in Echuca is 1.01% and 0.59% in the Campaspe region compared to 1.51% in Victoria. Anecdotally; safe and appropriate housing stock for older women remains a significant gap. • Anecdotally; we understand that primary homeless people in Echuca are waiting years for public housing. • There is no provision to support homeless people on code-red days in the local region. Recently the limited short-term charity-based support that was available was shut due to the increased risk to volunteers. In Echuca, ‘rough-sleepers’ mostly camp in the high fire prone area along the River.
Suggestions for policies and practices from all levels of government that will make a difference in delivering services to the homeless.
• Share data across government, NGO’s and charities so we can better understand the nature of the issue, • Undertake a local place-based approach to planning for effective delivery of services and infrastructure, • Work collaboratively across state and local governments in NSW and Victoria to plan services and infrastructure that suit cross-border communities,
3 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127
Most importantly, we want to see:
1. A review of program funding effectiveness to ensure it is being utilised to meet the short- term needs of homeless people in the Echuca region 2. A variety of new housing stock being built by government funded NGO’s, with 3. Interlinked services that support people to sustain their tenancies such as mental health, transport, employment, training, parenting, and community engagement. 4. Governments working in partnership with community to achieve local solutions.
Sincerely,
Nina O’Brien CEO
Committee for Echuca Moama
Subscribe to the E-News: http://eepurl.com/gi2bNX Follow us on socials: @c4echucamoama
Quick snapshot of the Committee for Echuca Moama (C4EM):
• C4EM collaborate on, advocate for, and lead initiatives that will make Echuca Moama a more connected, prosperous and vibrant regional centre. • We are independent, member funded and not politically aligned. • We have a cross-border, two-towns / one-community remit covering Echuca (situated in Victoria) and Moama (situated in NSW). • We undertake a wide range of projects and initiatives to: o facilitate economic growth, o advocate for the development of infrastructure, and o build livability.
4 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127
Homelessness in Echuca Moama – Full Report Funded by Committee for Echuca Moama
Dr Steven Roberts, Ms Cathy Waite, A/ Prof Dharma Arunachalam School of Social Sciences, Monash University May, 2017
5 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Introduction
The social and economic consequences of homelessness are wide ranging and profoundly damaging for individuals, families, communities and societies. Understanding, preventing and ameliorating the issue is an area of increasing local, national and international policy focus. Almost a decade ago, then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd released the Homelessness White Paper ‘The Road Home: A national approach to reducing homelessness’, referring to Australia’s homelessness crisis as a “national obscenity”. Whilst this led to homelessness being featured on the national agenda, Australia will not meet the White Paper’s admirable ambitions of halving the numbers of people experiencing homelessness and offering supported accommodation to all rough sleepers by 2020. Increasing unemployment (especially youth unemployment) rates during, and in the aftermath of the global financial downturn, alongside escalating costs of housing in both the private rental and home buyers’ markets, have combined to ensure that homelessness is an even more pressing issue. Large increases in the numbers of people accessing funded support nationally, but also increasing numbers of people who are turned away by support services, as documented in recent media coverage, attest to this.
Another part of this backdrop has been the consistent message that data and evidence are crucial to overcoming the homelessness crisis. Indeed, the 2008 White Paper specifically noted that ‘Good evidence is required to direct the response to homelessness and to assess the effectiveness of interventions’, while The Chair of Homelessness Australia, Jenny Smith, talking in the Age on April 17th 2017, pointed to the significance of ‘extending evidenced based responses’. Within this context, this report presents the salient findings of the commissioned research project related to homelessness in the Echuca Moama area. Fuller details of the findings and the methods undertaken for the research can be found in the Final Report. Specifically we were tasked to: • Engage stakeholders, to enable the collection of homelessness related data for Echuca Moama. • Collate and review the data collected. • Use the data collected to identify gaps and opportunities in homelessness service provision. • Use the data collected to quantify the need, and identify opportunities to guide development of an adequate supply of housing (crisis, transitional, affordable and long-term). • Develop a comprehensive localised data set that will be clear, concise and available to the community to identify priorities and to support planning and funding submissions to meet the needs of those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.
2
6 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Summary of priority findings
On the basis of our research, it is clear that there is little in the way of accessible, relevant localised data that permits researchers or members of the community to fully meet the objectives outlined above. In the case of Echuca Moama there is an absence of uniform approaches to data collection and sharing practices locally. There is also a ‘felt’ opaqueness about data collection practices by state and regional government bodies, with accessible data not sufficiently ‘drilled down’ to the level required for the task of constructing an accurate data base that stakeholders could act upon. The fragmented and siloed nature of homelessness services and the absence of an apparatus to collect data uniformly across states and regions, indeed even within regions, is an enormous hindrance for local stakeholders concerned with tackling homelessness. Any meaningful comparison between localities is almost impossible, while effective collation of data in order to make a case for support to funding bodies is a capacity that Echuca Moama simply does not have. We hypothesise that this is the case for many regional towns and locales. While there has been an emphasis on data gathering and evidence-based responses in national discourses, there are numerous challenges that ensure localities are hamstrung in their aims to collect data, to compare it cross regionally/ cross locally, and to use it as a means to prevent or tackle homelessness. The main task ahead for the C4EM reference group, and wider stakeholders, is to develop a response to these data challenges. This would most likely be considered as a community wide, systemic approach to the collection, management and sharing of data. However, to achieve this outcome, a financial commitment from the Victorian, NSW, or Federal governments is necessary. A reliable funding stream would support the development of a centralized database and facilitate access to relevant non-proprietary, de-identified information. This will provide an accurate representation of homelessness in Echuca Moama at the regional level, which would permit local providers to accurately outline how funds can improve services, and improve outcomes for those experiencing homelessness. It is, in our view, incumbent upon state and federal governments to provide localities with the means to access or to gather data in accordance with state sanctioned guidelines. These guidelines should be the foundation for practices that are adopted across all localities and permit meaningful comparison, as well as acting as a foundation to collect and act upon data and evidence.
3
7 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Table of Contents
Main Report ...... 5 Working definitions ...... 5 Community responses ...... 9 Survey insights (1) – current actions and perceptions regarding data ...... 10 Survey insights (2): ‘Felt need’ - the data that stakeholders want ...... 12 Focus group insights: A qualitative discussion of ‘felt need’ ...... 14 The need for dedicated housing for the vulnerable ...... 15 Perceptions of housing affordability in Echuca Moama ...... 16 Focussing on the importance of data in homelessness service provision ...... 18 Funding in the homelessness sector ...... 23 Challenges to delivering reliable and accurate information ...... 23 The funding environment: ...... 24 National context ...... 24 State focus: Victoria ...... 24 Region focus: Echuca Moama ...... 25 Potential funding opportunities ...... 26 Conclusion and key recommendations ...... 27 References ...... 29
Tables
Table 1: Homelessness in Murray area (Moama highlighted in yellow) ...... 7 Table 2: Homelessness in Shepparton area (Echuca highlighted in yellow) ...... 8 Table 3: Clients serviced by local SHS in Echuca, Jan-Dec 2016 (data provided by Echuca-based SHS) ...... 8
4
8 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Main Report
Working definitions In this research, we drew on a series of overlapping definitions of homelessness, heavily influenced by academic research on the ‘cultural definition of homelessness’ (Chamberlain and Mackenzie 2014). The ‘cultural definition’ of homelessness is predicated on three core categories: 'primary homelessness' – people living on the streets, sleeping outside, squatting in buildings or using temporary shelter; 'secondary homelessness', including those in emergency accommodation, or temporarily in others' houses/homes; and 'tertiary homelessness', encompassing people in private boarding houses without their own bathroom, kitchen or tenure security. The culturally perceived ‘minimum standard’ is also a concept that has been considered. As most people in Australia live in houses or apartments, the minimum standard for a single person is widely considered to be a small self-contained studio apartment. However, in relation to homelessness numbers derived from the ABS Census of Population, the ABS has recently developed, and retro-actively utilised a different statistical definition. The current definition moves away from one that focuses on Chamberlain and Mackenzie’s (2014) cultural definition. Instead, to be considered homeless, one or more of three criteria needs be absent: “adequacy of dwelling”; “security of tenure”; “control of, and access to for social relations”. While this definition is used for the most recent Census for which we have data (the 2011 Census), it is important to note that Chamberlain and Mackenzie (2014) contend that ABS’s new statistical definition does not adequately identify those 'housed- homeless' experiencing more tertiary forms of homelessness. Therefore, Census data likely under reports dimensions of gender, age, and geographic location in relation to homelessness. While this definitional debate is to be noted, Chamberlain, arguably Australia’s foremost expert on homelessness in recent history, agrees that the Census "is the best data we have for a given night" (verbal report to ABC’s ‘Fact Check’ in February 2016). However, Chamberlain concludes that, in respect of those sleeping rough, this is "almost certainly an undercount because this is the group that's really hard to find." This quote remains consistent with Chamberlain’s research literature, which notes that cars, bushes or empty buildings are also used for shelter and safety. This means that Census data collectors are unlikely to locate and identify all those who are sleeping rough. This is in part because the Census is held in winter when rough sleepers hide away to escape the cold, but also because people will seek spaces to sleep that protect their safety and security. Another key problem with Census night estimates is that the short-term homeless will be under-represented. It is also important to note that homelessness itself is not a characteristic that is directly collected in the Census of Population and Housing. Rather, estimates of the homeless population are derived from Census data using analytical techniques based on both the characteristics observed in the Census and assumptions about the way people may respond to Census questions.
5
9 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Data collected by homeless agencies is also important and insightful, and has the potential to provide in-depth and longitudinal insights. For example between 2012 and 2013, 244,176 individuals accessed homelessness services nationally (AIHW 2016). Local agencies are a thus a critical data source for any community trying to establish ways of measuring and combatting the effects of homelessness. Clearly, measuring homelessness is complex and it is difficult to gain an accurate representation of scale on a national basis. In part this relates to how homelessness is defined, and the pre-determined parameters deployed to make homelessness visible. However, because the phenomenon is a complex social issue and many facets of social marginalisation are implied in peoples’ experiences of homelessness, there are invariably many who are excluded during data gathering exercises. In part, local homelessness agencies can fill this gap through their own routine, comprehensive data-gathering processes. However, making a connection between national level data-sets, like the Census, and data collected by local agencies is also problematic, as this report will demonstrate.
Homelessness numbers The last Census for which we have data available is the 2011 Census of Population and Housing. Relevant data from the 2016 Census has not yet been released. The available ABS ‘data cubes’ illustrate that Echuca Moama has very low rates of homelessness, relative to national averages and surrounding areas. However, the number of clients serviced by an Echuca-based Specialist Homelessness Service (SHS) suggests rates of homelessness may be higher than indicated in Census records (Table 3). This relates to Census rates reflecting numbers of homelessness only on a single given night, and inability of the Census to account for recent fluctuations, or changes to the homeless population over time. Further, issues associated with Census numbers discussed above could explain this discrepancy in numbers. Another consideration is that the clients serviced by the SHS in Echuca may not necessarily correlate directly with the Census statistical definition. The SHS rates below (table 3) incorporate a potentially broader remit of people experiencing homelessness, or vulnerable to experiencing homelessness. Of particular interest in these figures is the large discrepancy between the official Census statistics and the numbers of clients seen by the SHS. This in part reflects the time lag between the two data sets, and also the fact that the SHS also assists clients who are not homeless but who are at risk of homelessness (e.g. helping those who are in rental arrears). Nonetheless, with a combined population of less than 20,000 in Echuca Moama, the number accessing an SHS in Echuca (282 individuals; 1.41% of population) seems proportionally high. As a point of comparison, an Inner Eastern district of Melbourne, with a population of around 175,000 (The City of Boroondara), had a 2015 SHS client base of around 1400 individuals (0.8% of the population). It is well recognised that not all people experiencing homelessness engage with an SHS, so the numbers reported should be seen as a conservative estimate of the true scale of homelessness in a given area.
6
10 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Table 1: Homelessness in Murray area (Moama highlighted in yellow)
Murray 229
Albury 150
Albury - East 30
Albury - North 25
Albury - South 57
Albury Region 4
Lavington 34
Lower Murray 13 Hay 0
Wentworth - Buronga 8
Wentworth-Balranald Region 5
Upper Murray exc. Albury 66
Corowa 3
Corowa Region 15
Deniliquin 15
Deniliquin Region 9
Moama 7
Tocumwal - Finley - Jerilderie 17
Because SHSs do not necessarily share data that they have collected with other agencies, meaningful comparison with other local areas is difficult. Though, this might be potentially possible with access to the necessary stakeholders or gatekeepers of key datasets. At the time of writing, we have been unable to garner any data from comparable rural towns, nor from any areas surrounding the Echuca Moama region. This is an issue that is reflected in the experience of stakeholders, as noted in the community responses, below. Therefore, while SHSs based in local rural towns collect data, and which, in the case of Echuca Moama, demonstrates homelessness may be under-represented in Census reports, it is difficult gaining a more comprehensive perspective of the problem. Owing to the complexity of the issue, and how it is dealt with within the community, having a clear, data-orientated representation is vitally important. The following sections detail the responses of community stakeholders in Echuca Moama on the issues of homelessness, and the role of data in addressing the problem.
7
11 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Table 2: Homelessness in Shepparton area (Echuca highlighted in yellow)
Shepparton 485
Campaspe 50
Echuca 32
Kyabram 4
Lockington - Gunbower 0
Rochester 7
Rushworth 7
Moira 77
Cobram 38
Moira 5
Numurkah 14
Yarrawonga 20
Shepparton 358
Mooroopna 37
Shepparton - North 111
Shepparton Region - East 0
Shepparton Region - West 14
Table 3: Clients serviced by local SHS in Echuca, Jan-Dec 2016 (data provided by Echuca- based SHS)
Echuca 282 Gender
Male 112
Female 170
Age
0-11 24
12-17 13
18-20 10
21-25 41
26-35 60
8
12 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
36-45 53 46-55 54
56-65 14
66-85 11 Youth- centric program 44 Male 16
Female 28
15-17 3
18-20 23
21-25 13 26-35 1
*Two individuals from total not accounted for in age-breakdown **Four individuals from youth-centric program not accounted for in age-breakdown
Community responses
The community survey questionnaire A brief questionnaire was distributed to stakeholders in the Echuca Moama community identified by the C4EM steering group as centrally, or peripherally concerned with homelessness related issues in the area. The aim of the questionnaire was to collect quantifiable data from key individuals in the community in order to address the gaps and opportunities in homelessness service provision. Questionnaire items were designed to garner information in particular on ‘felt need’ related to these issues. In line with the research project remit, felt need was conceptualised in terms of the perceived scope and extent of homelessness in Echuca Moama, as well as challenges associated with adequately addressing homelessness. The challenges of identifying and sourcing funding, alongside the importance of maintaining robust and consistent data- tracking, emerged as key throughout the project. To this end, the following describes participants’ responses in relation to homelessness in Echuca Moama, funding challenges and issues associated with data in the sector. We opt for detailed description rather than simply charts, as this enables us to better covey some of the complexity involved. Of 38 individuals and representatives identified and invited to complete the questionnaire by email, 19 responses were collected, equating to a response rate of 50%. It is important to
9
13 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
note that some questions were skipped by some participants, therefore the proportions reported for each question may not represent all 19 respondents. Given the low numbers reported, frequencies are recorded in brackets in order to provide an accurate representation of responses. Of the 19 responses, the majority stated that they service residents of Echuca Moama (or even beyond) with 4 respondents highlighting services are for Echuca residents only, and three considered their services directed specifically to Moama residents. Fifteen respondents answered the questions identifying the types of service provided by their organisation. Just over half those who answered the question identified providing housing or shelter advice (8 out of 15 responses) as the main service of their organisation, while six also reported crisis provision, and six indicated foodbank or soup kitchen services. There is some overlap here, with some organisations providing multiple services, for example shelter advice, crisis provision and other intervention services. The frequency with which homelessness is dealt with varied. Six respondents indicated they respond to homelessness related issues on a monthly basis, four reporting weekly and five reporting daily engagements to do with homelessness. The five engaging in daily engagement with homelessness issues, unsurprisingly, were the SHS providers but also the tenancy advisory service for people from Moama (or more specifically, people from south west NSW).
Survey insights (1) – current actions and perceptions regarding data As a means to inform our understanding of the types and forms of data collected by different community organisations and stakeholders, several questionnaire items addressed issues and challenges associated with data in the homelessness sector. The most common type of information collected according the respondents were demographic data, including gender (9), and age of client (9). Secondly most prevalent was an in-house identifier (6), followed by information in relation to the clients’ current situation (7) and whether the client was based in Echuca, Moama or both (7). As expected, those working for specialist homelessness services reported collecting the most extensive range of data. In terms of data retention, all those (9) who reported data histories indicated maintaining archives of more than 24 months. Just over half of those who responded to data questions agreed that the data recorded was accurate (7), while three respondents disagreed that data collected was accurate. Five respondents indicated some willingness to share existing data. This was mostly noted as being only anonymised statistics to do with demographics such as gender and age. In terms of collecting additional data and sharing with a wider community of interest groups as a centralised data base, just over half who responded indicated yes (7), while one individual stated no, and five deemed the question not applicable (6 did not answer this question at all). On balance, this has potentially negative implications for the sharing of data and the development of a community driven central data collection point. While this is not insurmountable, and certainly willingness and approaches to sharing data can be revisited, the immediate concerns and relative lack of motivation (for whatever reason) should be understood as being very real obstacles to collecting a shared localised workable data set.
10
14 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Specific concerns were raised in relation to potential increases to staff workload, maintaining privacy of clients, and risks associated with the sharing of commercial in confidence data. Using a scale of 1-5 (one being very difficult; 5 being very easy), respondents were also asked to indicate relative difficulties associated with obtaining data collected outside of one’s own organisation about local homelessness and homelessness data more generally (e.g. national/ regional level and/or comparable data). Very few agreed that this was ‘somewhat easy’, or ‘very easy’. In regards to accessing local homelessness data outside what was collected by their own organisation, two thirds (12) indicated they felt it was ‘very difficult’ (4), or ‘somewhat difficult’ (8). This indicates at least a perception, or even potentially, a practice of insularly focussed data collection and a current absence of motivation in regards to data sharing. This parallels, in some ways, with the relative lack of capacity, or perceived capacity, to share data or to collect further data. General information and statistics about homelessness was presented as being slightly easier to locate and access than locally relevant data. Just over a third reported finding this ‘very difficult’ (3), or ‘somewhat difficult’ (3) to access, with the majority (7) finding that this kind of data was neither easy nor difficult to obtain. Considering the apparent difficulty of accessing data in respect of both local homelessness and more general homelessness, and although this does not apply to all stakeholders, a data knowledge deficit is apparent. This reflects i) the lack of access to others’ data; ii) the lack of quality accessible data provided by both national and local levels; but also iii) a lack of awareness of the local and national level data that does exist. Respondents were also asked to specifically consider ‘What Echuca Moama related homelessness data are you aware of but believe you cannot access?’ While only 9 surveys contained a response, these responses speak to the issues highlighted above, in that many perceive that other stakeholder agencies had data that would be informative but that sharing does not occur beyond anecdote. A clearly expressed desire for an accurate, broad level perspective of homelessness in Echuca Moama emerged from the questionnaire responses. These responses detail a lack of comprehensive understanding of the exact nature, and extent of homelessness in the region. Collection of data, as well as accessing and sharing such data, arises as one way to manage this problem. However, managing the development, and operation of such an enterprise comes with seemingly insurmountable barriers according to the survey respondents. In many ways, this relates to the added time required, from already time-poor workers, for such a project. For example, forming partnerships with stakeholder organisations, ascertaining the requirements of a proposed database, developing any specialised software, and crucially, maintaining the ongoing functionality of the platform. Certainly, external financial support would be necessary from state or federal government, for the development of a transparent, simplified homelessness data resource. This would enable Echuca Moama, and other comparable localities, to gain an accurate, up-to-date perspective of the nature, and extent of homelessness in the area. Such information is vital for the many community stakeholders, not merely SHSs, in a rural town. Access to such data would help inform the delivery of tailored support programs targeting homelessness.
11
15 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Survey insights (2): ‘Felt need’ - the data that stakeholders want The types of information that respondents reported wanting access to included data sourced across dedicated homelessness agencies, and non-mainstream services tangentially involved in homelessness issues, for example, businesses and community groups. More specifically, respondents listed wanting information on current living situations, data from welfare agencies, tenancy information, numbers of clients’ accessing other services in Echuca and Moama, history of homelessness, demographic dimensions of homelessness, contact details for services operating out of business hours that support homeless people. Some of this felt need could seemingly be met by an agreed model of data sharing and transparency between all stakeholders. In regards to ascertaining the felt need in relation to homelessness, respondents were asked to rank the most prominent forms of homelessness in Echuca Moama. Three types of homelessness were given as options; ‘Primary homelessness (i.e. people without conventional accommodation, for example sleeping rough or in improvised dwellings)’; ‘Secondary homelessness (i.e. people who frequently move from one temporary shelter to another, for example emergency accommodation, youth refuges, "couch surfing"); and ‘Tertiary homelessness (i.e. people staying in accommodation that falls below minimum community standards, for example boarding housing and caravan parks)’. Across the respondent pool, there was a range of answers. The majority (88%) agreed that secondary homelessness was the most prominent (7) or second most prominent (9) form of homelessness, and only one individual indicated that this was the least prominent. This included respondents representing specialist homelessness services, and several community organisations. Two thirds stated that primary homelessness was most (3), or second most prominent (8). Just under half reported that tertiary homelessness was most (4), or second most prominent (3). Across this spectrum of homelessness, just under half indicated dealing with each level in their jobs. In terms of assigning priority, just over two thirds (6) selected secondary homelessness as the top priority in Echuca Moama, while three individuals reported primary homelessness, and three stated tertiary. The findings provide evidence of mixed knowledge on this issue. On average, primary homelessness makes up a very small proportion of all homelessness nationally (Homelessness Australia, 2017). We suspect, therefore, that the visible reality of primary homelessness likely raises the perceived prominence of the issue, but not in ways that diminish the stakeholders recognition given to the prominence of secondary homelessness. However, of importance was that those indicating primary homelessness as having the greatest priority were more likely to report not dealing with each level of homelessness in their respective organisations or interacting with homelessness issues on a monthly basis. Respondents who indicated that secondary homelessness should have the highest priority included those representing SHSs, as well as community and religious organisations. These respondents mostly indicated dealing with homelessness on a daily or weekly basis. Tertiary homelessness was deemed the highest priority by only two respondents. These respondents represented a government and a charitable foundation.
12
16 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
In regards to the availability of services and housing in Echuca and Moama, respondents tended to agree accessibility was challenging. Affordable housing was problematic, with the majority (88%, 15) stating it is either ‘very poor’, or ‘somewhat poor’. Further, options such as crisis accommodation, including youth specific or gender specific, was deemed by most as either ‘very poor’, or ‘somewhat poor’ (16; 17; 15 respectively) in terms of availability. In regards to transitional housing, perceptions of accessibility was similarly poor with the majority indicating ‘very poor’, or ‘somewhat poor’ (12), and a smaller number stating ‘neither poor nor good’ (2), or ‘somewhat good’ (1). According to Haven Home Safe, the number of transitional properties in Echuca is 11, representing a mix of one person and family-sized homes. Therefore, these perceptions seem well founded, particularly when considered in light of the data in Table 3 (above). We have not been able to obtain data for Moama. The number, visibility and availability of specialist homelessness services and homelessness advice services was also understood to be limited, though responses were somewhat more positive in some instances. Indeed, two out of five indicated that accessibility of homelessness specialist services was either ‘very poor’ (3), or ‘somewhat poor’ (4). Still, of all the items in the Likert-scale question reported in this section, accessibility of specialist homelessness services was the most positive in relative terms. Indeed, nearly one third stated that accessibility was ‘neither good nor bad’ (5), while a smaller number agreed that it was ‘somewhat good’ (3), or ‘very good’ (2). In more general terms, the majority of respondents indicated that the visibility of all homelessness services were either ‘somewhat poor’ (10), or ‘very poor’ (2). On a community level, knowledge of homelessness services were similarly perceived to be negative with 80% indicating ‘somewhat poor’ (11), and ‘very poor’ (2). Lastly, responding to an item on understandings of data quality in relation to homelessness, most also agreed that it was ‘somewhat poor’ (5) and ‘very poor’ (6). Therefore, the 19 key community stakeholders who responded to the questionnaire agreed that homelessness carries a multitude of challenges in Echuca Moama. A significant felt need was reported in regards to the importance of the issues. Secondary homelessness was deemed by most to be the most prominent form of homelessness, though there was a range of perspectives in regards to primary and tertiary forms of homelessness. The importance of data collection, and access to information was acknowledged, alongside challenges related to this. Further, housing affordability in Echuca Moama was highlighted as another key concern. Lastly, the visibility and accessibility of homelessness services was variously identified by respondents as problematic, or limited. The provision of, and access to greater and more simplified data resources in regards to homelessness in Echuca Moama could mitigate some of the opaqueness, and variation amongst the community in terms of the extent of homelessness, and how it is defined. The variation of responses that emerged from the questionnaire demonstrate that stakeholders situatedness within the community, and the form of (if any) services offered by them, informs their interpretation of the issues. Those rarely, or infrequently encountering homelessness, means that they necessarily have a different understanding to those who do. This unfortunate gap in understanding could be alleviated by access to a centralised database contributed to by those in the community who service homelessness issues.
13
17 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Qualitative results (1): The focus group A focus group was conducted in Echuca Moama with 12 individuals from various organisations across Echuca and Moama, including representatives from library services, disability services, homelessness services, local council, health services, and religious organisations. Focus group members included both those working in dedicated homelessness services, as well as those working in areas dealing with homelessness in more tangential ways within non-mainstream organisations. Focus group respondents were identified from among the same list of key stakeholders invited to respond to the questionnaire. The focus group was designed to extend the findings of the questionnaire, and provide an opportunity to draw out greater detail and discussion.
Focus group insights: A qualitative discussion of ‘felt need’ Respondents discussed felt need in respect of data issues and services, and perceptions of homelessness in Echuca Moama. On the whole, homelessness was felt to be more prevalent than it appeared. This was consistent with the questionnaire data in which secondary, more than primary forms of homelessness, were deemed important. Indeed, couch surfing was brought up as “very common…the invisible side of homelessness”, and also insecure tenancy arrangements. Wider community level perceptions of homelessness, however, were generally understood to be quite poor, with low visibility outside of the sector noted as a cause. However, some respondents noted that visibility of rough sleepers has increased in recent time, and this was related to understandings of what homelessness is within the community. Homelessness for the wider community was seen to be often associated with rough sleepers with a general ignorance of secondary or tertiary homelessness. “I don't see anyone sleeping on the street. So where's the homelessness?” one respondent asked rhetorically. Further, the broader community’s understanding of homelessness was perceived as underscored by assumptions that fault was linked to homeless people themselves. “Holding the victim of homelessness responsible for their condition. So victim blaming”, as one focus group member declared. According to the respondents, this was compounded by a general lack of understanding from vulnerable people themselves: “I don't think people understand how close they are to homelessness themselves; they just need to lose their job.” As such, secondary and tertiary homelessness was, the group suggested, likely not even identified by those experiencing it themselves. A participant reasoned that this could have implications for data collection purposes outside of the SHS sector. This was demonstrated when forms asking for clients’ addresses were automatically populated with comments such as ‘no fixed address’, rather than homeless. The result is that: “technically your system's probably thinking they're not homeless”. This anecdote indicates the importance of educating stakeholders and workers in non- mainstream, as well as mainstream homelessness services on the complexity of
14
18 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017 homelessness, and how it is broadly defined. Cleary without such knowledge, the development of a valuable database, useful to those across the service provider spectrum, will be impeded.
The need for dedicated housing for the vulnerable Another form of felt need in regards to homelessness in Echuca Moama related to a lack of housing provision for those experiencing, or vulnerable to homelessness in the local area. Respondents stated that there is no crisis accommodation available, and in regards to transitional housing available in Echuca: …there's some transitional housing in town, but probably not enough. There's a bottleneck there. So transitional housing, which our organisation offers in town, but I think there are only five properties that I'm aware of. The idea is that they live there for a period of time, they're supported for say up to two years, but then they're supposed to be exited either into public housing or into private rental. So there's a bottleneck because they don't necessarily have the housing access yet in either way - private or public. (focus group participant)
In regards to those in crisis seeking accommodation: There's no such thing as crisis accommodation in town, so you rely on just the good will of business owners who have motels, hotels, caravan parks, whatever - which is essentially unsustainable for most people. (focus group participant)
Indeed, this was consistent with a general perception in the focus group that services are under-resourced in Echuca Moama. Among a few participants in the group, support for specialist homelessness services in the area was deemed to be challenging. One suggested that more people are needed to help service large numbers of clients in Echuca Moama. Another respondent explained that, in regards to Moama in particular, there are “huge constraints” in regards to equitable distribution of state funding. Large population centres in nearby areas attract greater portions of funding than Moama, even after applying directly for increasing crisis housing. Frustration was shared related to the perception that other places are well-serviced, but the relative remoteness of Moama means that issues associated with homelessness emerge but cannot be met. But some cross-links with Echuca homelessness services appear to have been established. Further, there was some agreement that family and domestic violence are significant problems in the broader area. As such, this impacts homelessness service provision. But dedicated services exist in nearby Bendigo, with outreach services in Echuca meaning that access to vital services is limited by geographic isolation.
15
19 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Echuca Moama’s status as a popular tourist destination was brought up, and considered in the context of commercial accommodation availability. Respondents explained that limited commercial accommodation options were seasonally variable, and sometimes entirely unavailable when booked out for tourist events held in the town. In the context of homelessness, discussion about sourcing emergency accommodation was impacted by competing commercial interests: It can be very problematic to secure accommodation for people. You might be able to put them up for a couple of nights but … it's incredibly hard to - because you guys [reference to the specialist service providers] are still seeing - you're still seeing hundreds. (focus group participant)
The problems related to the absence of specific crisis accommodation was emphasised here. Segueing into an extensive discussion about housing affordability in Echuca Moama, participants described how this shaped homelessness service provision in the town.
Perceptions of housing affordability in Echuca Moama The private rental market in Echuca Moama was reported as variously difficult, or “nearly impossible” to enter, especially for those with low income or other social difficulties: You encounter discrimination at every level in trying to access that (the private rental market), even when you're a professional, you encounter discrimination. So if you're not a professional and you're a homeless person or a person with no history of rental because you've come from a situation where other people have always been the lead tenant, then your access to housing is going to be extremely difficult in this area. (focus group participant)
Indeed, there was an extensive discussion about housing affordability in Echuca Moama, in addition to problems accessing the private rental market. Respondents reported that many clients end up accessing more affordable housing in small rural towns on the outskirts of the Echuca Moama area. While it is cheaper and easier to rent in these small towns, accessing social services became more complicated according to respondents. This means that vulnerable people become “absolutely stuck and a lot of those people - housing is just one of the challenges that they're trying to deal with in their life and they haven't got the support or the mechanisms to access the services that they require” (focus group participant). One respondent explained that there is some scope for social service workers to visit outlying townships, but time demands can mean that visits become infrequent. Local public housing was also deemed to be difficult to access. The process was characterised by long waiting lists, though participants indicated that specific data demonstrating the extent of the problem was not available for Echuca Moama. Not knowing the specific details of public housing waiting lists in Echuca Moama frustrated some respondents, because it meant that an accurate understanding of the issue could not be gained:
16
20 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
But within that (broader) catchment area you can't really tell who's waiting for Echuca, who's waiting for Kyabram, who's for Tongala. So it doesn't break down that way. But it does give you an idea of how severe the problem is because of the amount of time that people are waiting to get housed. (focus group participant)
Further, the issue of collecting data in relation to housing emerged, specifically availability: “I think (data in relation to) the housing stock too somehow is that - from my angle that would be useful in terms of - possibly it's available, it's just a matter of I don't know where to find it I suppose. But what's currently available. Because we're talking about two state governments - two local government areas…(it’s) difficult to get it from both”. This local knowledge is useful in highlighting the challenges faced in achieving C4EM’s objectives around developing necessary, and useful specific local datasets. The apparent lack of available local data was something that we also found in our wider pursuit of information. For example, in Victoria, the public housing waiting list, which charts demand for public housing stock is currently being replaced (as of November 2016), but the current presentation of data does not enable users to dig down to the necessary, regionally-specific level. Currently, ‘Goulburn (Shepparton)’, 75km from Echuca Moama, is the most refined localised level of data available. Similarly, the September 2016 Victorian Rental Report mentions Echuca only once in its prose (highlighting Echuca as having the second highest increases in moving annual median rents among three-bedroom houses in regional Victoria (6.7%)), and the only detailed figures pertaining to Echuca are the moving annual medians for 1, 2, 3 and 4+ bedroom homes. The Rental Report provides data on housing affordability for the entire Goulburn-Ovens-Murray region as a collective. This region fares well in terms of affordability, having the second highest proportion of affordable rentals in Victoria. 69% (1421) of lettings in the region are classified as affordable for households on Centrelink incomes. This is bettered only by Gippsland (72.4%). Of note, however, relevant regional figure drops to below 1 in 3 (32.4%) for affordability of 1 bedroom accommodation. Nonetheless, this is still the second highest proportion of affordable 1 bedroom homes, again just behind Gippsland at 33.9%. In respect of Moama, specifically, we have not unearthed any relevant up to date specific local data on affordability. As with much of our findings, this strongly indicates that the development of improved data- related strategies are needed to increase, and improve a more detailed understanding of homelessness in Echuca Moama. This includes detailed understandings of potential support services, such as availability of public housing, or the rates of affordable rental properties in the area. In summary, from publically available data, and without being able to talk specifically about either Echuca or Moama, we hypothesise that felt need in respect of affordable housing is likely to be out of kilter with the aggregate picture that we can surmise from the available government data. That is to say, although stakeholders will likely find very real cases where affordable housing is an issue for homeless individuals and families, relative to other regions, housing affordability would not be deemed to be especially problematic in Echuca Moama.
17
21 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Focussing on the importance of data in homelessness service provision Discussion about ‘felt need’ established during a community planning survey in relation to public housing introduced an extensive discussion in the focus group about data. Precisely, the importance of collecting, and maintaining accurate data records to gain an improved perspective of homelessness in the community was a key focus. In particular, focus group participants indicated wanting to utilise quantifiable datasets as a means to advocate, and lobby for improved resourcing for homelessness service provision in Echuca Moama: “the difficulty for us is our data just doesn't demonstrate the high need. We can pull out exactly how many referrals we've had from Moama, but it doesn't back up the anecdotal information”. As on respondent explained: “we've had this trouble of quantifying the issue… We don't have any actual data, it's just the clients we have coming in asking for help, a lot of them say they're camped on the river or ‘no fixed address’”. Some respondents noted that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) would have detailed, and region specific data on these issues, but pathways to access such information was not clear: “That's the gap isn't it?”. Working across state lines also causes a problem, because each state department responsible for housing in NSW and Victoria has different approaches to data collection and different regional ‘microscope’ methods. The comments from the stakeholders echo our experience during this process. Obtaining data beyond that which is public in the Census data and the SHS providers is exceptionally difficult. Participants reasoned that lobbying for increased funding and improved services could be supported with accurate, consistent data displaying trends over time. But one participant worried that this “won’t achieve a great deal” unless it is raised by an external body. Challenges emerged because “the numbers don’t stack up. We don’t have the data…” because, in part, Moama clients access services in Echuca potentially skewing the severity of homelessness problems when viewed from data perspective. Some respondents explained that as part of their roles in the homelessness service sector, collecting data was routine, and this was fed directly to key funding bodies such as DHHS. And while some indicated a desire to access what they imagined to be quite comprehensive, regionally specific data, this might not necessarily be the case. Indeed, one respondent reported that they thought that data collection protocols across other SHS organisation might not be as robust across other organisations. Respondents reasoned that stories of incomplete and missing data sets getting reported to DHHS might mean even the department has an insufficient data set: “it's unreliable, it's messy, there's not enough data there”. And participants reported that there would invariably be implications related to funding decisions made by DHHS if the data set is potentially unclear. This lack of clarity around the access to, and useability of government level data, is problematic. Again, this points to a need for a state or federally funded, but locally-specific data-collection regime.
18
22 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
In terms of organisations sharing data in the ways posed during the questionnaire, issues of privacy and confidentiality emerged during focus group discussions: “get that permission to do that (collect data). Not do name and date of birth - just age and - just a … demographic thing but not get the identifying specific information so that they're protected”. And this issue becomes salient in the context of private organisations, which may not be readily inclined to share commercial-in-confidence information Focus group discussion moved towards a consideration of the types of data that might populate a local database useful to advocating for improved resourcing. In regards to the need to quantify homelessness service seeking and provision, respondents were asked to volunteer what they routinely recorded as part of their jobs and what they thought should be recorded. As such, respondents discussed a hypothetical process for collecting data in the homelessness service sector in Echuca Moama. It was reasoned that collecting routine data on homelessness service access could be relatively straight-forward for those organisations that have protocols in place already. But for others who do not, for example, volunteer organisations, collecting data could be difficult and add to an already significant workload. Also, in the case of volunteer organisations staffed by individuals with limited computer- literacy skills, completing electronic forms could be an additional challenge It's about trying to work out a way of doing that (collect data) and (which) is easy for people and then what we need to figure out is, as well if we're all going to start gathering that information, where does it go and who manages it. (focus group participant)
Another respondent identified potential challenges associated with coordinating and managing such a data collection exercise. They suggested that an individual or group of people would need to be solely responsible for deploying such a project in order to it to be viable. Such an endeavour would, of course, require dedicated funding from an ongoing funding stream. This was well received as an idea. In terms of the type of data most needed, respondents agreed that demographic information was key: “it's basic demographics we need to keep on top of that and record that so then we know what groups are standing out the most and how we target our funding and interventions”. Other types of data posited by focus group members included recording when individuals were referred to a homelessness service. This constituted a means to identify any discrepancies between people accessing one service in the town, and not another: “we do a lot of verbal referring and we don't document it… So we haven't got the evidence”. Further, when a client presented to a service more than once, but not necessarily identifying who they were, merely recording the repetition of visits was another form of information identified by the respondents as being useful for the future. One respondent outlined a potential data gathering framework in which an agreed upon set of questions are addressed by local organisations on a regular basis. This included information solicited from real estate agents, volunteer organisations, and community service organisations. The respondent reasoned that this raw data could potentially supplant the
19
23 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017 anecdotal information that is currently relied on. Other suggestions included information from local schools, and police. Introducing the notion of a common identifier for the purposes of developing a database for sharing information across organisations, many respondents indicated a positive response. However, several noted ethical concerns around confidentiality for the client and the potential for clients to be put off from attending necessary services if “form filling was mandatory”. Others raised issues around who held the authority required to make decisions in regards to sharing data once it was collected. The practical workings of such a system were also held to be difficult. We would, however, recommend revisiting this idea, with the adoption of a trial process, with 3-4 agencies taking part in a pilot that would see them develop and use a common identifier and agree to share specific information for three months. If this worked, funding could be secured from state or federal government to roll the model could out further. However, we reiterate that this model is not optimal, and we still strongly advocate that uniform approaches financed and rolled out by local, regional and federal government is a superior plan of action. Members of the focus group and key stakeholders in the homelessness service sector in Echuca Moama had an extensive discussion about potential improvements to the sector. These concerned understandings of homelessness issues in the town, compounded by challenges identifying the problem, and its visibility within the broader community. Problems securing resources, funding and support were discussed, and potential opportunities to address these were highlighted. Respondents again discussed options for the development of a database that would aid the recording of regionally specific information about homelessness.
Qualitative results (2): Key stakeholder interviews The next tier of data collection for this project, presented below, derives from insights garnered from two key stakeholder interviews conducted with individuals from Echuca’s specialist homelessness services. These individuals were able to further compliment the data collected as part of the focus group and questionnaire. They were able to provide additional detail and information by drawing on their experience and expertise in Echuca’s homelessness service sector. The specialist homelessness services in which the interviewees worked were based in Echuca and resourced from Victoria-based agencies. However, both reported occasionally servicing clients from Moama, and this was decided on a discretionary basis. Building on themes introduced during the focus group, interviewees were asked to discuss details about funding arrangements in the homelessness service sector and within their own organisations. As this was not within either of these key stakeholders suite of responsibilities, interviewees stated they could not give detailed information about this. Both agreed that main funding streams are state-based, with DHHS a significant contributor. In terms of non-government funding, and the proportional mix between government and non- government, both interviewees were less sure and gave several cases of philanthropic or community funding arrangements (see Flatau et al. 2015). However, in regards to accessing funding themselves, while this was not part of their jobs, one respondent indicated seeking
20
24 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017 small amounts of money on behalf of clients by negotiating with local agencies in the region, while another discussed accessing a community grant. Though these sources of funding were relatively small in comparison to state funding and sometimes inconsistently available. Beyond their own organisations, both interviewees were not prepared to opine on funding arrangements in the homelessness sector. Both respondents discussed potential improvements for the homelessness sector in regards to funding. However, the manner of suggested improvement differed between interviewees. One respondent cited a need for more workers in order to meet the demand for service generated in the community. The other respondent made a point of stating that the amount of funding was less a problem when considered against problematic processes for distributing payments to community and clients. Giving the example of paying for goods and services by cheque, the interviewee explained the problem. Such a system meant that it takes a long time for providers to receive money, and the wait is frustrating for all involved. This results in increasing discrimination against clients, and reflects poorly on the organisation by perpetuating issues of trust and confidence. Funding, and the distribution of money throughout the homelessness service sector, is clearly a key element of the issue. A further challenge described by one respondent relates to homelessness service provision and issues operating in the private sector. Here, tensions between private and not-for-profit interests and agendas are perceived as ultimately having a negative impact on service provision. Both respondents also discussed the ongoing importance of data, including collection and sharing in regards to homelessness service provision in Echuca Moama. Both interviewees reported sophisticated data collection regimes mandated and determined by DHHS who’s funding both services heavily relied on. Information was entered into databases provided by the department and automatically fed in de-identified form directly to DHHS held databases. Demographic information was recorded, including name, date of birth, address, gender, verifiable identification, indigenous status, country of birth, family details, as well as experiences of mental, or general ill-health. One respondent described additional information collection that was not necessarily required by DHHS, including clients’ historical experiences in relation to renting, gambling, substance abuse and mental health treatment. If a client gave consent, then support could be solicited by workers on their behalf to assist them. As described in detail by one respondent, the data is collected initially as part of an assessment appointment. Here, a file is opened, and updated over time to reflect changes in client circumstances. Notes are taken and recorded against client files, including a record of contact, the type of contact, the type of need identified and the support provided. In regards to retrieving historical data, or accessing trend-data from DHHS, the interviewees were somewhat unsure. They reasoned that historical data collected by their own agencies could be theoretically available, with one respondent citing the organisations’ annual report, and the other detailing previous data recording systems. Respondents reported that data collected by them was used to generate statistics, to provide status updates, and to populate reports sent at the end of each month detailing the amount and types of service provided. Data was uploaded to a particular platform, and collated in Canberra. Data was also used to provide accountability for the purposes of funding, policy development, and achieving policy
21
25 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
aims (at national, or state level). Respondents also talked about using data to trace a client’s progress over time. Both respondents indicated being interested to access the broad-level datasets that they assumed DHHS retained based on their own reporting figures, and what they assumed to be other SHS’s, reporting habits. However, anecdotal reports described by one respondent indicated DHHS datasets were potentially messy and partial due to poor data reporting among other SHSs: I don't know if it's (the DHHS data) available or not. I mean, I can't even find out from work or DHHS, say, how many properties they have in Echuca that are public housing properties. It feels a little bit protected to me and it feels like there is a little bit of a wall around information there. I don't know, again, whether it's a matter of - I don't know whether you lobby the government and pay a certain amount of money to have information - I have no idea how it works. I've never tried to access that information. But that is the information that communities need access to if they're going to come up with some sort of plan that - I mean, they can come up with a plan, but what people are asking for is compelling information. They want compelling data. (Key stakeholder 1)
Problems with the data reporting system were identified by one respondent related to the perceived inefficiency of the data-gathering process. This concerned the double, and even triple reporting of the same data for different sectors and agencies. The interviewee reasoned that the additional work required to do this impacted service provision in the SHS. In a similar vein, the other key informant countered that information was not the main problem. Instead, they contended that not being able to figure out what to do on community level was the crux of the problem. According to this respondent, there was a lack of know- how, and those in a position to engender change, appear to not want to assist. According to this respondent, this was because of resistance to programs seen to overtly support homeless people. For example, an initiative addressing primary homelessness, such as providing crisis shelter, might be seen to attract more homeless people to the area. As described by this participant, some community decision makers may see this as having a negative impact for the town. Interviews with two key stakeholders working in homelessness service provision in Echuca Moama provided a detailed account of challenges in the homelessness sector. Gaps in service provision related to lack of resources, in the form of staff and funding, as well as problems associated with disrupted and inefficient payment and reporting systems. While sophisticated data collection strategies were in place, access to extra-organisational information, or historical trends did not seem to be available. Solutions tended to be located at both community levels, and more broadly at state funding arrangements.
22
26 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Funding in the homelessness sector
Challenges to delivering reliable and accurate information In terms of ascertaining exactly how funding from different sources are distributed to agencies and organisations providing homelessness services, there is little information currently available that provides an adequate picture. The most recent high profile, thorough research into this issue makes clear that “there is no comprehensive data on the financing of services supporting homeless people…” (Flatau, et al. 2015: 4). The research from where this quote derives is part of an ongoing project to address the challenges associated with homelessness service provision and funding sources in Australia. While there is detailed information available on a national or state basis from commonwealth and state government funding sources in homelessness services, there is still very little data on non-government funding sources, and how the funding is used by services. The information made public in the form of annual reports is often not sufficiently detailed to shed insight into ongoing funding streams. The lack of information on non-government funding arrangements could be because data collection systems and practices are much more sophisticated in government-funded agencies than in philanthropic, corporate or social enterprise services. This is the case even if the agency itself is non-government and operates within a contract (Flatau, et al. 2015). In addition to government funding (including commonwealth, state, territory, and local government) there are other forms of funding arrangements in the homelessness sector. These include philanthropic, ‘own-source generated revenue’, and corporate sponsorship. In addition, other sources of funding include crowdsourcing, social investment and social impact bonds. These latter sources of funding are present in some sectors of the homelessness service industry, but there is little data to provide a comprehensive picture in the Australian context (Flatau, et al. 2015). However, issues associated with the interaction between mainstream and specialist services is an additional complicating feature in the process of gaining an accurate insight into funding in the homelessness sector. This is related to the fact that homelessness, and risks of homelessness are invariably linked with other issues, including health, substance abuse, unemployment, financial hardship and interactions with the justice system. As such, homeless people are likely to access other services, in addition to specific homelessness services. But this intersection across services is not adequately captured in reporting of homelessness data by agencies situated as homelessness specialist services. Therefore, “charting a more comprehensive picture of funding and service provision that includes non- specialist and mainstream services benefiting homelessness is thus one of the challenges” (Flatau et al. 2015: 12). In light of these established difficulties, the following sections will give a brief outline of the funding environment in Australia. Beginning with a snapshot of national level funding streams, state and regional specific funding details will also be outlined. The full details of
23
27 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017 the brief review of funding in the Australian homelessness sector can be found in the attached spreadsheet ‘Funding allocation online review’.
The funding environment National context In Australia, the government schemes National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH), and National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) are responsible for arranging the distribution of commonwealth and state funding. There are an estimated 1,500 organisations that provide homelessness services operating under these programs (Flatau et al. 2015). Drawing on Flatau and colleagues’ (2015) report into the funding of homelessness services in Australia, the following outlines key commonwealth funding sources:
Ø NAHA delivered $6.2 billion in support for low and middle-income households in its initial five years. This sum was formed out of contributions from state, and commonwealth government Ø The NAHA also presided over an additional $632 million under the National Rental Affordability Scheme that incentivizes organizations to construct 50,000 new rental properties for low-income tenants 20% below market rent. Ø The ‘A place to call home’ initiative was given $300 million to provide 600 homes over five years for homeless people Ø Commonwealth and state government also invested $400 million dedicated to the provision of public housing for low-income people. This also included specialist models of housing provided under The National Partnership on Social Housing Ø In addition, $1.9 billion has been invested over 10 years to support quality housing in remote indigenous community under National Partnership on Remote Indigenous Housing Ø NPAH distributed $1.1 billion over five years for resources to support homelessness Ø 2009–13: the Commonwealth provided $400 million proportionally distributed in relation to the number of homeless in each state or territory. The states and territories were obliged under this scheme to match the amount provided by the commonwealth. And the initial 2009-13 period was extended, and will now end in June 2017 o 2013-14 – commonwealth contributes $159m o 2014-15 – commonwealth contributes $115m o 2015-17 – commonwealth contributes $230m o all amounts matched by states and territories (Flatau et al. 2015: 9). Ø 2015-17 commonwealth (via the NPAH) provides $230 over two years, matched by states/territories to support 800 “frontline homelessness services” (NPAH 2016) Ø 2015-16: Specialist Homelessness Services receive $29.6 million in financial assistance provided to clients. On average, $520 is provided per client requesting financial assistance (an increase from $468 per client from previous year). Nearly three quarters of funding was used to assist with housing. A further 48% (14.2 m) was used to help clients with tenancy issues, while 25% (7.5m) was for securing short-term and emergency accommodation (SHS 2015).
State focus: Victoria
24
28 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
In Victoria, state specific funding provides an opportunity to hone in on funding in the homelessness sector. The Department of Health and Human Services details the following in the 2015-16 budget allocation: Ø For 'housing assistance’ $420.8m was provided o Under the banner of 'housing assistance', the following programs are detailed (see DHHS 2015-16: 39 for more detailed break-down by program) o the Gatwick Hotel (rooming house, Melbourne) $0.2m from 2015-19 o Homelessness innovation action projects $9.4-10.7m from 2015-19 o Work and learning centers $1.6-1.7m from 2015-19.
Ø Victorian Homelessness Action Plan, 2011-2015: the report states “almost $166 million” was provided to a number of programs (Victorian Homelessness Action Plan, 2011-2015). Specific programs with funding outlined in more detail include o $4.6 million over the next four years for the Work and Learning Centres (in partnership with Brotherhood of St Laurence) o $30.1 million for the Youth Foyers (state gov. in partnership with Brotherhood of St Laurence and Hanover Welfare services) o $15 million over two years for eight Innovation Action Projects; $10million to scale up successful approaches
Ø St Vincent de Paul Society, NSW, 2014-5. Philanthropic funds dedicated to range of community organisation and Specialist Homelessness Services. Total use of funds - $136,899; including 'costs for centres of charity and other' - $41,633; Homeless, mental health and housing - $36,255; 'People in need' - $26,334 Ø Future directions for Social Housing report, NSW, 2015, NSW Government: Social housing program sets out 10 year strategy to supporting spending 'Up to $1billion on new social and affordable housing'
Region focus: Echuca Moama Consistent with the findings of Flatau and colleagues (2015), ascertaining an accurate insight into funding streams on a local level is challenging, to say the least. In some cases, this is because detailed reporting on funding is not available for some organisations. Also, gaining an accurate, encompassing classification of the range of service providers supporting homeless people can be problematic given the complex nature of homelessness itself. Still, a brief overview of funding in the homelessness sector in the region is outlined: Ø Regional development Australia, Murray Regional Plan (Murray Shire) 2014-2015: 'Support the delivery of the Homelessness Programs', and provide early intervention brokerages to support case plans of risk groups; also to provide social housing intensive support packages including 30 social housing tenancies per year for homeless people Ø Councillor Discretionary Funds in Echuca Moama, 2014: The Echuca Moama Apex Club provided $160 for two swags donated to local homeless people (Shire of Campaspe 2014) Ø Social investment grants program, North-eastern Victoria, 2016: Meals @ the Bridge Lifeline; and The Gay and Lesbian Foundation of Australia each received $20,000 grant in August 2016; Community farm initiative to establish a community farm for
25
29 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
40 participants from metro and rural with aim of addressing 'root cause of their homelessness'. Funding sources was community sector banking Ø Sydney Myer Haven, Haven Home Safe, Bendigo, Victoria, 2015: Residential complex Program provided with $6+m. Funding sources was principally government, but also range of non-government streams.
Potential funding opportunities While the majority of funding sources reviewed in the above paragraphs do not include details in regards to the availability of such funding, a small number do invite applications. A selection of those sources publicly inviting applications potentially available to address homelessness in Echuca Moama is outlined below: Ø Victorian Homelessness Action Plan: specialist and mainstream service providers can submit applications for an ‘Innovation action project’ Ø Social Housing Community Improvement grant funding, NSW government. A range of community projects have been funded up to $50,000 (though no specific homelessness projects have been previously funded). Application process is open to local councils, among other community groups or organisations. Ø Department of Health and Human Services Grants: Opportunities for 'funding open for application' however no homelessness specific programme's are available as at Jan 2017 Ø The Mercy foundation: Providing social justice small grants, between $1000-10,000. Focus for 2017 are projects concerning older people, also disadvantaged women or children. Only NFP's (not-for profit) eligible, and priority for small organisations, and local community groups not receiving other funding Ø Foundation for rural and regional renewal, Enable: Communities to help themselves. Small Grants are provided for Rural Communities (SGRC), priority is given to communities with population of 10,000 or lower.
There is also a possibility that Monash University (or others) could work with stakeholder groups to develop a bid for the Australian Research Council (ARC)‘Linkage’ scheme, where the ARC provides funding for research purposes to be used alongside funds or in-kind support from partner organisations. This could include the development and subsequent evaluation of a piloted programme related to combatting homelessness in the area. A recent example of how this type of collaboration might work can be found in the project ‘Journey to Social Inclusion’1, a three-year pilot program launched by Sacred Heart Mission (SHM) that aimed to assist 40 people to make a permanent exit from long-term homelessness. The pilot was evaluated by RMIT and University of Melbourne, and recently, in conjunction with collaborators (from Sacred Heart Mission, Cabrini Health, William Buckland Foundation, Lord Mayors Charitable Foundation, St Kilda East Parish, Orcadia Foundation, R.E Ross Trust, and the Limb Family Foundation), the ARC awarded a Linkage Grant (LP 140100168) to follow the participants three years further than the original trial date.
1 For more details see https://www.rmit.edu.au/research/research-institutes-centres-and-groups/research- centres/centre-for-applied-social-research/publications/research-reports/journey-to-social-inclusion-pilot-program
26
30 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Another example of researchers working with practitioners and stakeholders is the Geelong Project. The Geelong Project is a place-based, whole of ‘community of schools and youth services’ approach to early intervention in respect of youth homelessness. The project uses population screening, a flexible practice framework and youth-focused, family-centred case management. The model builds in longitudinal follow-up and support to reduce homelessness, and achieve sustainable education and lifetime outcomes. The model grew out of collaboration between university researchers and the Early Intervention Working Group of service providers and schools. It made use of a particular funding stream made available by the Victorian government. While this funding is no longer available, it illustrates the kind of partnership that can be developed when such funding streams do become available. Of further interest, a principal innovation of the Geelong Project was a response to the absence of good data. The project partners developed their own method for obtaining and recording data on risk of homelessness. Population screening for risk was carried out using a short Student Needs Survey (SNS). The SNS was completed by every secondary student in a school and results were matched with a separate list of school identified at-risk students (local knowledge). A follow-up screening interview was then conducted to see if information about risk remains valid and current. As part of the process of intervention, the project was able to use the SNS to produce a local dataset on couch-surfing. These figures suggested while many young people were at risk of couch-surfing at times, the number doing so on any one night was probably less than previously thought. However, this was nonetheless understood as being something that can occur on various occasions throughout any single year. The other main finding of the Geelong Project that we find useful for the situation in Echuca Moama is that schools and indeed all stakeholders need to be connected in a systemic way. This needs to incorporate official agencies that engage in a range of early intervention activities, including and most importantly, family support work. That is, a place-based communitywide organisation of schools and services is needed. Bilateral ‘referral-based’ relations between some schools and agencies who only fulfil a certain function would not be sufficient.
Conclusion and key recommendations
Homelessness has emerged as an issue of concern within the Echuca Moama community. There is specific concern about how best to address it, and develop improved outcomes for vulnerable members of the community. In large part, strategies to develop improved outcomes are associated with data and with funding. Accordingly, this research project collected a range of perspectives and insights from key stakeholders in the community. Utilising questionnaires, focus group and key informant interviews, several areas of concern were articulated. Difficulties associated with gaining an accurate, up-to-date and regionally specific representation of homelessness, and the complex nature of the issue, were canvassed in detail.
27
31 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Specifically this relates to problems linked with accessing data reflecting instances of homelessness, service access, or demographic details of those seeking support. Owing to the siloed nature of the homelessness service sector, accessing data reflecting a broad-reach representation of the issue for any given region is difficult, and potentially impossible. The community stakeholder respondents of this research argued that this reality negatively impacts the ability of the community to advocate, and lobby for improved services, and, therefore, is detrimental for those community members experiencing homelessness. We would suggest that further research and reports similar to that undertaken here, but in other localities, would likely duplicate the findings. The monies involved in such initiatives could be better invested into other practical solution-based homelessness projects, if our recommendations were further acted upon. To this end, and based on our analysis of the research findings, we make the following recommendations related to the development of a suitable and sustainable infrastructure: 1. Dedicated, and ongoing funding is sought from an external source. For example, one of, or a combination of, the Victorian government, the NSW government, or the federal government.
i. Funding should support the development and maintenance of a transparent, simplified homelessness data resource and collection platform accessible to all relevant stakeholders.
ii. Ongoing maintenance of the database should include financial support for human resourcing to ensure its continued relevance and applicability.
2. The development of a database and collection platform reflecting the specific instances of homelessness, specifically including:
i. Data is collected in partnerships between local organisations and groups, homelessness services, and volunteer organisations. ii. Data is de-identified, and the process protects the confidentiality of clients. iii. Data collection process is simple, easy to use and transparent. iv. Data collected demonstrates the scope and nature of homelessness in small areas, like Echuca Moama for example. v. Data collected demonstrates trends over time. vi. Data collected can be used to lobby for targeted, and tailored support to address the specific needs of homeless, and vulnerable members of the community.
3. Beyond funding the data collection infrastructure that would enable localities to act in the interest of combatting homelessness, C4EM should advocate for regional and/ or state governments to take responsibility for devising and rolling out a common framework in order that localities can compare homelessness data across state lines and within and between regions.
28
32 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
References
Department of Health and Human Services Grants, retrieved 11 January 2017 at: https://www.dss.gov.au/grants
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2015, Department of Health and Human Services funding guidelines Vol three - Human Services Policy and Funding Plan 2015-6; Chapter 2- Human Services Output Budget Information and Unit Prices, retrieved 12 January 2017: http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/about-the-department/plans,-programs-and-projects/plans- and-strategies/key-plans-and-strategies/policy-and-funding-plan-department-of-human- services
Flatau, P., Wood, L., MacKenzie, D., Spinney, A., Zaretzky, K., Valentine, K., and Habibis, D. 2015, The Inquiry into the funding of homelessness services in Australia, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, retrieved 10 January, 2017 at: https://www.ahuri.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/5863/AHURI_Discussion_Paper_The- Inquiry-into-the-funding-of-homelessness-services-in-Australia.pdf
Foundation for rural and regional renewal, Enable: Communities to help themselves, retrieved 11 January 2017 at: http://www.frrr.org.au/cb_pages/small_grants_for_small_communities.php
Homelessness Australia. 2017, ‘Homelessness Statistics’, retrieved 10 February, 2017: http://www.homelessnessaustralia.org.au/index.php/about-homelessness/homeless-statistics
National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH). 2016, Australian Government Department of Social Services, retrieved 10 February, 2017: https://www.dss.gov.au/housing- support/programmes-services/national-partnership-agreement-on-homelessness
Regional development Australia, Murray Regional Plan 2013-2016, Murray NSW, retrieved 11 January 2017 at: http://www.rdamurray.org.au/assets/pdfs/RDA%20Murray%20Regional%20Plan%202013_2 016.pdf
The Mercy foundation, retrieved 11 January 2017 at: http://www.mercyfoundation.com.au/index.cfm
Shire of Campaspe Media release, 16 July 2014, Council Meeting, Retrieved 12 January 2017 at: https://www.campaspe.vic.gov.au/assets/media-news/619/attachments/council-pieces- july.pdf
Social Housing Community Improvement fund grants, round 1, 2015, retrieved 13 January 2017 at: http://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/reforms/social-housing/social-housing-community- improvement-fund-shcif/2015-social-housing-community-improvement-fund-grants
Social Housing Community Improvement fund grants, round 2, 2016, retrieved 13 January 2017 at: http://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/reforms/social-housing/social-housing-community- improvement-fund-shcif/2016-social-housing-community-improvement-fund-grants
29
33 of 34 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 127 Homelessness in Echuca Moama- Full report; Roberts et al. 2017
Social investment grants program, 2016, retrieved 12 January 2017 at: http://www.communitysectorbanking.com.au/grants/2016-recipients
Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) collection - 2015-2016 Annual report, retrieved 10 January 2017, http://www.aihw.gov.au/homelessness/specialist-homelessness-services-2015- 16/clients-services-outcomes/
St Vincent de Paul Society, NSW, annual report 2014-5, retrieved 11 January 2017 at: https://www.vinnies.org.au/icms_docs/233673_NSW_Annual_Report_2014-15.pdf
Sydney Myer Haven, Haven Home Safe, 2015, retrieved 11 January 2017 at: http://www.havenreports.com.au/major-projects/sidney-myer-haven/
Victorian Homelessness Action Plan, 2011-2015, Victorian State Government, retrieved 11 January 2017: file:///C:/Users/cjwai2/Downloads/Victorian_Homelessness_Action_Plan.pdf
30
34 of 34