DOCSLIB.ORG

The Welfare State and the Gender Dissimilarity Index in Homelessness: a Comparison of Norway, Belgium and Poland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Welfare State and the Gender Dissimilarity Index in Homelessness: a Comparison of Norway, Belgium and Poland Volume 8 | Issue 1 | 2021 | 11-23 Available online at www.housing-critical.com https://dx.doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2021.8.1.519 The Welfare State and the Gender Dissimilarity Index in Homelessness: A Comparison of Norway, Belgium and Poland Magdalena Mostowska Faculty of Geography and Regional Studies, University of Warsaw, Poland [email protected] Abstract: This article investigates the structural underpinnings of gender dissimilarities in homelessness from a comparative perspective. The Gender Dissimilarity Index is introduced as a simple measure for quantifying the unevenness of the distribution of men and women across the ETHOS-light categories. Three gendered aspects of the welfare state are considered and compared for Norway, Belgium, and Poland: employment and childcare, housing, and homelessness policies. Based on available data, it appears that the most uneven distribution of genders may indicate a combination of the promotion of the male breadwinner model and relatively broad support for people who are homeless, but also the shortage of affordable housing. A more gender-balanced homeless population may be the result of a combination of housing-led approaches and degenderising policies. However, a similar distribution may be attributed to states with implicitly genderising policies coupled with ‘traditional’ attitudes towards gender roles and a lack of adequate responses to women’s needs. Keywords: welfare state; housing regime; gender; homelessness. 11 Volume 8 | Issue 1 | 2021 | 11-23 Available online at www.housing-critical.com https://dx.doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2021.8.1.519 Introduction Across Europe men constitute the overwhelming majority of those who seek the help of low- threshold homelessness services. However, the proportion of men and women depending on social assistance due to housing problems varies significantly among different countries (Löfstrand and Quilgars 2016). It has been shown in various contexts that it is women who rely, more often than men, on informal social networks in order to secure housing (Mayock et al. 2015). However, researchers have so far failed to systematically explore the impact of welfare regimes and social policies on the gender imbalance in housing exclusion. Questions have been raised about the conceptualisation of homelessness offered by the European Typology of Homelessness and Housing Exclusion (ETHOS) and the collection of data on homelessness in general (Pleace and Hermans 2020). However, there is broad consensus that severe housing deprivation is a much wider phenomenon than sleeping in the streets. The thirteen ETHOS housing categories, ranging from living in public spaces, cars, and tents to insecure tenancies and unfit housing that can be hazardous to health (Edgar et al. 2004) are widely acknowledged and used. Little is known, however, about whether and, if so, why men and women are not evenly represented not only in the overall population of people who are homeless but also across various situations of homelessness and houselessness. This article investigates the structural underpinnings of gender dissimilarities in homelessness from a comparative perspective. It aims to explore the character of homelessness in relation to gender in three countries: Norway, Belgium, and Poland. The main question here is whether the (dis)similarities may be coupled with the welfare regimes of those countries. Obviously on the national level of comparisons there is a risk of salient oversimplifications. Still, it has been shown that welfare types are associated with levels of homelessness (Elsinga 2015), and that the proportion of women varies across national data (Löfstrand and Quilgars 2016). Another purpose of this article is to contribute to this area of comparative research by introducing the Gender Dissimilarity Index (GDI). Aside from the gender gap, i.e. the percentage of women among the homeless, the GDI would serve as another efficient measure that can be helpful in comparing the dissimilarity of gender representations in data. In light of the above, three aspects of welfare states and their intersections with gender are considered in the present analysis: (1) employment and childcare, (2) housing, and (3) homelessness responses. The article then surveys some welfare indicators and characteristics of homelessness responses in the three countries. Further, it presents available data on homelessness, calculates the GDI, and compares the countries in question. Finally, it concludes by examining the possible structural underpinnings of the GDI. Fuzzy types of welfare states The first and ground-breaking typology of Northwest European welfare regimes (Esping- Andersen 1990) has been challenged because it does not take into account variations around the world. Also, the main independent variable, which is the degree of de-commodification, i.e. the degree to which a household can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independently of market participation, does not adequately explain the complexities of the welfare state. This distinction has also been disputed by feminist scholars, who have shown that 12 Volume 8 | Issue 1 | 2021 | 11-23 Available online at www.housing-critical.com https://dx.doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2021.8.1.519 these categorisations focus on the state and the market, and barely acknowledge the role of family and reproductive work (Orloff 1993). This problem was soon addressed by Esping- Andersen himself (1999, 2009) and a number of gender-focused typologies emerged (Saxonberg 2013). It has moreover increasingly been shown how complex the welfare arrangements within countries are. Not only are many states classified as ‘hybrid’ types but various policies within one country may pull in opposite directions producing ‘fuzzy sets’ of policies (Ciccia 2017). Many policies are linked, however, and their various dimensions intersect. For instance, labour market policies need to be looked from a gender perspective and seen at in relation to issues such as access to parental leave or formal childcare. Further, policies themselves are ‘gendering practices’ that, to a different degree, make subjects become men or women (Bacchi 2017). Most comparative research on gender and welfare states concerns employment and childcare. The ‘genderisation’ model, proposed by Saxonberg (2013), assesses policies by the degree to which they ‘eliminate gender roles’ (degenderise), provide strong incentives to adhere to ‘traditional’ gender roles (explicitly genderise), or reinforce existing gender divisions through a laissez-faire approach (implicitly genderise). Avoiding the risk of homelessness not only requires equal access to paid work but also the ability to escape a violent relationship and maintain an autonomous household (Orloff 1993: 319). This is a crucial characteristic of the welfare state in the context of homelessness since a large proportion of the women who experience homelessness have faced difficulties after ending a relationship and/or having experienced violence (Mayock et al. 2016). Degenderising policies are probably the policies best able to protect single parents and single women. The concept of housing regimes, the second element of analysis, also stems from the critique of the original welfare regime typology. Housing, the ‘wobbly pillar’ of the welfare state, has not supported the de-commodification argument convincingly enough and has not been included in the welfare regime typology (Malpass 2008; Stephens 2016). Despite criticisms, the simple dichotomy of housing regimes introduced by Kemeny (1995) remains influential in comparative housing studies. In the integrated regime described by Kemeny, a large share of the population live in rental housing stock and there is universal access to rental housing (public and private, both strictly regulated). In the second regime, homeownership dominates, and the small supply of public housing plays a marginal role. The question remains, however, to what extent such a crude distinction between housing regimes adequately explains the chances of the most vulnerable households to secure housing. Also, very little is known about the gendered effects of the two housing regimes. Finally, a number of dichotomous types of policies have been presented in homelessness research, which roughly refer to structural versus individual opposition: long-term responses vs emergency responses, the Housing First model vs the staircase model, rights-based vs needs- based approaches. There exists a four-component typology of homelessness services that takes into account the degree of housing provision and intensity of support: (1) Housing First: high intensity support in ordinary housing; (2) rapid rehousing without intensive additional support; (3) high intensity support offered in temporary accommodation; and (4) emergency services such as shelters that are focused on basic needs (Pleace et al. 2018). It would be difficult, however, to identify differences in gender-sensitivity between the types. Most individualised approaches would obviously be able to better cater to individual needs, but only as long as access criteria do not work against certain groups. For instance, high intensity support programmes may select people with complex needs (addiction and mental health problems) and 13 Volume 8 | Issue 1 | 2021 | 11-23 Available online at www.housing-critical.com https://dx.doi.org/10.13060/23362839.2021.8.1.519 leave behind those whose homelessness is primarily (still) an issue of poverty. Homelessness responses nevertheless
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Integration of Homelessness, Mental Health and Drug and Alcohol
    The integration of homelessness, mental health and drug and alcohol services in Australia authored by Paul Flatau, Elizabeth Conroy, Anne Clear and Lucy Burns for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Western Australian Research Centre UNSW-UWS Research Centre August 2010 AHURI Positioning Paper No. 132 ISSN: 1834-7223 ISBN: 978-1-921610-46-2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and the Australian states and territory governments. AHURI Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from these governments, without which this work would not have been possible. AHURI comprises a network of universities clustered into Research Centres across Australia. Research Centre contributions—both financial and in-kind—have made the completion of this report possible. We would like to thank those in Western Australia, New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria who assisted us in completing interviews for the case studies. In Western Australia, we would like to thank: Steve Joyce, Anna Paris, Steve Retel and Natalie Hyde, all from Ruah Community Services; and Julie Waylen of the Department for Child Protection. In Victoria, we would like to thank: Amanda Kingston-Coldwell, Mark Planigale, Gail Heidke, Danielle Le Brocq, Nannette Wilkinson, Daniel Clements, Linda Staehli, all from HomeGround; Danielle Collins, Alfred Hospital; Carmen Raspour, St Vincents Hospital; Jo Beckett, Melbourne Magistrates Court; and Trish Ferrara, North East Housing Services. In NSW we would like to thank: Andrew Don, Giselle Goy, Samantha George, Denis McLaughlin, Anita Langley, Felicia Tungi, Darryn O'Brien, Carlos Duarte, all from Haymarket Foundation; Susan Johnston, Susan Johnston Consultancy Services; Sylviane Vincent and Bev Lange, Bobby Goldsmith Foundation; Jenny O'Mahoney, Katy Roy and Jenny Case, all from NSW Health; Anthony Stralow, Department of Community Services; and Alison Little, Housing NSW.
    [Show full text]
  • HDDT Making Change Possible
    Making Change Possible Sharpening the Focus on Homelessness and Substance Use within Crisis Supported Accommodation Services in Inner Melbourne, Victoria. KIM RAYNER March 2003 Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Science (Primary Health Care) Faculty of Health Science, School of Medicine Department of Public Health, The Flinders University of South Australia CONTENTS CONTENTS ii GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS vi SUMMARY vii LIST OF TABLES xi LIST OF FIGURES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xiii STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP xiv 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Study Purpose 2 Research Questions 1.2 Definitions 3 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction 5 2.2 Homelessness 5 2.3 Homelessness and Drug Use 7 2.4 Homelessness, Housing and Drug Use 12 2.5 Health, Homelessness and Drug Use 14 2.6 Heroin Overdose 18 2.7 Mental Illness, Drug Use and Homelessness 19 2.8 Use of Drug Treatment Services by the Homeless 23 2.9 Conclusion 29 3.0 METHODOLOGY 31 3.1 Introduction 31 3.2 Methodology 31 3.3 Methods of Enquiry 33 3.4 Population Under Study 34 3.5 Sample Size Calculation 36 3.6 Recruitment and Selection 36 3.7 Instrument 37 - Development Phase - Instrument Design 3.8 Data Collection 43 3.9 Data Analysis 45 3.10 Validity and Reliability 46 ii 3.11 Limitations to the Study 50 3.12 Ethics 51 - Management of Potential Harm to Participants 4.0 OVERVIEW OF THE SAMPLE 55 5.0 ACCOMMODATION / HOMELESS HISTORY 59 5.1 Stays within CSAS 59 5.2 Mobility of Participants 61 5.3 What’s a Home? 62 5.4 Reasons for Coming to the CSAS 64 5.5 Reasons for Currently
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Violence Victoria 922.92
    LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 198 Inquiry into Homelessness in Victoria Ms Kate Mecham Organisation Name:Domestic Violence Victoria Your position or role: Policy Advisor 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,Housing affordability,Family violence,Indigenous people,Services,Mental health,Rough sleeping,Employment What best describes your interest in our Inquiry? (select all that apply) : A peak body ,Other (please describe) Family Violence Are there any additional themes we should consider? Family Violence and gender impacts on homelessness and housing YOUR SUBMISSION Submission: Do you have any additional comments or suggestions?: Thank you for the opportunity to respond FILE ATTACHMENTS File1: 5e3394f976c8f-SUB 200108 Homelessness Inquriy FINAL.pdf File2: File3: Signature: Kate Mecham 1 of 17 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 198 Domestic Violence Victoria January 2020 Author and Key Contact: Kate Mecham Policy Advisor DV Vic CEO: Alison Macdonald © 2020 Domestic Violence Victoria 3 of 17 LC LSIC Inquiry into Homelessness Submission 198 Contents About Domestic Violence Victoria (DV Vic) ............................................................................................. 3 Family violence and the use of language ............................................................................................. 3 Introduction: The scale and nature of
    [Show full text]
  • Homelessness and Covid-19
    HOMELESSNESS AND COVID-19 CSI Response 26 March 2020 Authors Professor Paul Flatau CSI UWA Dr Ami Seivwright CSI UWA Mr Chris Hartley CSI UNSW Ms Catherine Bock CSI UWA Ms Zoe Callis CSI UWA Contact Prof Paul Flatau | [email protected] | @pflatau SOCIAL IMPACT SOCIAL FOR CENTRE www.csi.edu.au 2 Document name The COVID-19 crisis will disproportionately affect those that are currently homeless or at risk of homelessness with respect to increased risk of exposure and greater likelihood of severe cases and mortality. The economic impact of COVID-19 and responses to it places an enormous number of Australians at risk of homelessness, paving the way for a vicious cycle if policy levers across a broad range of domains are not fully utilised. The Centre for Social Impact (www.csi.edu.au) homelessness policy response to COVID-19 is quite simple: Prevent, House, and Support. SOCIAL IMPACT SOCIAL CENTRE FOR CENTRE PREVENT, HOUSE, SUPPORT Homelessness in Australia Before COVID-19 A key component in the fight against COVID-19 is requiring people to stay at home and self-isolate. But how does one self-isolate if one does not have a home? Or, how do you self-isolate if you have a home but there is severe overcrowding at home, or you are living in supported accommodation or boarding houses where you do not have separate bathrooms and toilets or living areas? In this CSI COVID-19 Response we address the issues that COVID-19 poses for homelessness and put forward an appropriate homelessness response.
    [Show full text]
  • Homelessness Prevention for Women and Children Who Have Experienced
    Homelessness prevention for women and children who have experienced domestic and family violence: innovations in policy and practice authored by Angela Spinney and Sarah Blandy for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Swinburne–Monash Research Centre June 2011 AHURI Positioning Paper No. 140 ISSN: 1834-9250 ISBN: 978-1-921610-73-8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This material was produced with funding from the Australian Government and the Australian states and territory governments. AHURI Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from these governments, without which this work would not have been possible. AHURI comprises a network of universities clustered into Research Centres across Australia. Research Centre contributions—both financial and in-kind—have made the completion of this report possible. David Hudson of the Institute for Social Research at Swinburne University is gratefully acknowledged for his help in editing this Positioning Paper. DISCLAIMER AHURI Limited is an independent, non-political body which has supported this project as part of its programme of research into housing and urban development, which it hopes will be of value to policy-makers, researchers, industry and communities. The opinions in this publication reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of AHURI Limited, its Board or its funding organisations. No responsibility is accepted by AHURI Limited or its Board or its funders for the accuracy or omission of any statement, opinion, advice or information in this publication. AHURI POSITIONING PAPER SERIES AHURI Positioning Papers is a refereed series presenting the preliminary findings of original research to a diverse readership of policy-makers, researchers and practitioners.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Check 22 May 2020
    Evidence check 22 May 2020 Rapid evidence checks are based on a simplified review method and may not be entirely exhaustive, but aim to provide a balanced assessment of what is already known about a specific problem or issue. This brief has not been peer-reviewed and should not be a substitute for individual clinical judgement, nor is it an endorsed position of NSW Health. Homelessness and COVID-19 Rapid review question What guidance is available to support health systems respond to COVID-19 and associated risks for people experiencing homelessness? In brief • Homelessness is a significant social determinant of health. Expert opinion is that people experiencing homelessness may find it difficult to effectively quarantine, practise distancing measures or perform proper hand hygiene. This may exacerbate and amplify the spread of COVID-19. • Opinion suggests that people experiencing homelessness often have pre-existing medical conditions and limited access to healthcare, which may increase the impact of COVID-19 compared to general populations. • Evidence suggests that infection control, isolation and quarantine were challenges in previous pandemics and epidemics. Lessons can be applied from HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, H1N1 and SARS, including the need to establish rapid communication between public health and homelessness service providers, ensuring providers have access to personal protective equipment, and identifying where and how people will be isolated and treated. • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported high proportions of positive COVID-19 test results upon universal testing in some shelters in the USA, suggesting the need for broader testing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in these settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Poverty & Housing
    FAST FACTS Poverty & Housing Poverty puts pressure on people – it’s constant and strong. If the pressure builds up, people can be pushed into homelessness. We can relieve the pressure on people’s lives by creating affordable housing and helping people get decent jobs. We can also help people withstand this pressure by strengthening our social welfare system and ensuring all payments stay above the poverty line. We can end homelessness and increase housing affordability. Investing in social housing is both the right and smart thing to do. How are housing and poverty linked? Percentage increase in Average Housing Costs 2005-2017 In Australia, increasing housing costs played a major role in keeping the MIDDLE 20% HOUSHOLDS 15 overall poverty rate at around 12-13% from 2009 to 2017, when it would LOWEST 20% HOUSEHOLDS 42 have otherwise declined.¹ 0% 25% 50% Relying on income support and renting in the private market increases the risk of poverty. For example, in 2017-18, the poverty rate for people aged over 65 years who owned or were purchasing their home was 10%. However, it was more than 4 times that - 41% - for those renting privately.² How many people are homeless or waiting for social housing? At least 116,000 Australians are homeless on any given night and 190,000 households are on waiting lists for social housing. There is a national shortage of 433,000 homes for people in the lowest 20% of household incomes who are either homeless or in rental stress and at high risk of becoming homeless.³ Social Housing Unit Shortfall See also these heat maps of homelessness and 2016 Australian Bureau of Statistics Data social housing need by Federal Electorate and the Homelessness Week media release, 3/8/20.4 7,700 101,800 The pandemic has shown how 38,500 vulnerable people are when 32,500 “they don’t have a home, and 135,000 how urgently we need more 3,000 102,800 social housing so that every Australian can have a safe 11,400 place to live.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Housing on the Lives of Women and Children - Post Domestic Violence Crisis Accommodation
    The impact of housing on the lives of women and children - post domestic violence crisis accommodation: A study undertaken by the NSW Women Refuge Movement and the UWS Urban Research Centre February 2009 NSW Women’s Refuge Movement Resource Centre Ms Taryn Champion, Policy Officer Ms Catherine Gander, Executive Officer On behalf of NSW Women’s Refuge Movement Working Party Inc UWS –URC Dr. Olga Camacho Duarte, Research Office Professor Peter Phibbs, Academic Program Coordinator Dr Louise Crabtree, Research Program Coordinator Ms Margaret Kirkby, Research Assistant. Acknowledgements: The WRM and UWS would like to acknowledge and thank the women and refuges that supported this study through their participation. Thanks to Robyn Higgins for the front cover. Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 6 2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................. 7 Avenues to address homelessness for vulnerable women ...............................................................8 3. Current Policy Context .................................................................................................. 12 4. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 13 Aims
    [Show full text]
  • Affordable and Appropriate Housing for Women Equality Rights Alliance Women’S Voices for Gender Equality
    National Plan on Gender Equality Affordable and Appropriate Housing for Women Equality Rights Alliance Women’s Voices for Gender Equality Key Information Housing policy is not age or gender neutral Older single women emerged in the 2016 Women’s housing needs are reflected in housing census as the fastest growing cohort of people support and service use: experiencing housing stress and homelessness. o Women make up 63% of people aged 15+ The number of homeless women 55+ went up by assisted by specialist homelessness services 31% and the number of homeless women aged (AIHW 2018). 65 – 74 increased by 51%. o Women are 62% of social housing tenants (AIHW 2019). Domestic and family violence is the number one o 45% of rent assistance recipients are single reason women become homeless in Australia. women (while 30% are single men and 20% 40% of female clients cite it as the main reason are couples).2 for seeking homelessness assistance.1 Women’s housing needs are influenced by: o Low incomes – 51.5% of people living in poverty are girls and women (Davidson, et al., 2018) – 51% of low-paid employees are women, despite making up only 47% of the total workforce (ACOSS, 2019) o Caring responsibilities – There are 959,543 single parent families in Australia – 81.8% are single mother families (ABS, 2019c) o Domestic and family violence – 91% of adults seeking homelessness support as a result of domestic & family violence are women (AIHW 2018). 1 CHP analysis of AIHW, Specialist Homelessness Services Collection, 2017-18. 2 2018 data on Commonwealth Rent Assistance commissioned from Department of Social Services for ERA.
    [Show full text]
  • Which Way Home?
    Which Way Home? A New Approach to Homelessness Which Way Home? A new approach to homelessness May 2008 © Commonwealth of Australia 2008 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth available from the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General’s Department. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Attorney-General’s, Robert Garran Offices, National Circuit, Canberra ACT 2600 or posted at http://www.ag.gov.au/cca DISCLAIMER: The Green Paper on Homelessness has been prepared by the Commonwealth as a consultation paper. The Commonwealth accepts no responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material contained in the Green Paper. Additionally, the Commonwealth disclaims all liability to any person in respect of anything, and of the consequences of anything, done or omitted to be done by any such person in reliance, whether wholly or partially, upon any information presented in the Green Paper. CAUTION: The opinions, comments and/or analysis (including those of third parties) expressed in the Green Paper are for discussion purposes only and cannot be taken in any way as expressions of Commonwealth policy or indicate a commitment to a particular course of action. Material in the Green Paper is made available on the understanding that the Commonwealth is not providing professional advice. Before relying on any of the material, readers should obtain appropriate professional advice. ISBN 9781 921380 976 Foreword After 17 years of continuous economic growth it is simply unacceptable that, each night, 100,000 Australians are homeless.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health and Accommodation 2
    Youth Coalition of the ACT Submission to the Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Health and Disability Inquiry into the Current Levels of Access to Safe, Secure and Affordable Housing for People with a Mental Illness July 2005 Contents Page The Youth Coalition of the ACT 4 Summary of Recommendations 6 1. Introduction 9 1.1 A human rights issue 9 1.2 Access to secure housing is essential 10 1.3 Improving health outcomes for young people 11 2. Dual Diagnosis – co-occurring substance abuse and mental illness 11 2.1 What is dual diagnosis? 11 2.2 Why focus on dual diagnosis? 11 2.3 Treatment of dual diagnosis 11 2.4 Mental health services vs alcohol and other drug services – a juggling act 12 2.5 The need for comprehensive service delivery 13 3. Sector Viability 13 3.1 Lack of funding 13 3.2 A reliance on community programs 14 4. Dual diagnosis and homelessness are intertwined in terms of cause and effect 15 4.1 The Homelessness/Dual Diagnosis Cycle 15 4.2 Alcohol and other drug issues increase a person’s risk of poverty and homelessness 16 4.3 Mental illness increases a person’s risk of poverty and homelessness 17 5. Access to safe affordable housing for young people 17 5.1 Access to Public Housing 18 5.2 A study looking at matching housing to the individual 20 6. The presence of mental illness or dual diagnosis can impact on a young persons ability to find and maintain stable accommodation 21 6.1 A lack of suitable accommodation 21 6.2 Access to YSAAP Services 21 6.3 Identifying accommodation options for young people with dual diagnosis 22 6.4 Case Study 23 6.5 Rules and criteria for accessing YSAAP 24 6.6 The need for an adolescent in-patient unit 24 6.7 Case Study 25 Youth Coalition 2005 Standing Committee on Health and Disability Inquiry into Mental Health and Accommodation 2 7.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Accommodation in Metro Perth
    EMERGENCY ACCOMMODATION IN METRO PERTH Name Demographic Children Friendly Price Location Contact No. Email Website Y-SHAC Anglicare Rockingham: Address Crisis 15-20 Years & Men and $210 fortnight. https://www.anglicarewa.org.au/get- NO given once approved for (08) 9523 3400 [email protected] Women Income dependant. help/housing-and-homelessness/y-shac Accommodation stay Rockingham Y-SHAC Anglicare Spearwood: Address Crisis 15-20 Years & Men and $210 fortnight. https://www.anglicarewa.org.au/get- NO given once approved for (08) 9412 0673 [email protected] Women Income dependant. help/housing-and-homelessness/y-shac Accommodation stay. Spearwood 15- 25 years singles, Mount Lawley, YES! Housing Varies: Call First and https://www.anglicarewa.org.au/get- couples, young parents YES Spearwood and (08) 9263 2009 [email protected] speak with them. help/housing-and-homelessness/yes!-housing Anglicare (up to 12 months) Rockingham $21-$250 YHA Fremantle All ages men and Yes in private room 6A The Terrace, https://www.yha.com.au/hostels/wa/perth- Depending on (08) 9433 4305 [email protected] women with an adult Fremantle surrounds/fremantle-backpackers-hostel/ Prison Rooms $26-$120 All ages men and 300 Wellington Street, https://www.yha.com.au/hostels/wa/perth- YHA Perth City Yes in family rooms Depending on (08) 9287 3333 [email protected] women Perth surrounds/perth-backpackers-hostel/ Rooms YHA Perth City Students only – must $165 per week or 300 Wellington Street, https://www.yha.com.au/hostels/wa/perth- Student rooms (3 NO (08) 9287 3333 [email protected] present student card $199 with breakfast Perth surrounds/perth-backpackers-hostel/ week Minimum) Males aged between 18 Newstart- $25 day 55 Central Crisis 55 Central Avenue, https://55central.asn.au/crisis-accommodation- and 65 (up to 3 months NO Youth A- $21 day (08) 9272 1333 [email protected] Maylands service/ Accommodation stay) Disability- $30 day ABSTUDY INFO: Varies based on type 1800 132 317 All Men and Woman.
    [Show full text]