Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper
Paul van Reyk
May 2013
‘Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper’
By Paul van Reyk
First published in May 2013.
This copy printed 10 May 2013.
Shelter Brief 53 ISSN 1448-7950
© Shelter NSW Incorporated 2013
Shelter NSW 377 Sussex Street, Sydney NSW 2000 www.shelternsw.org.au
This paper may be reproduced in part or whole by non-profit organisations and individuals for educational purposes, so long as Shelter NSW is acknowledged.
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Shelter NSW.
Shelter NSW gratefully acknowledges the financial contribution of Homelessness NSW towards this project: www.homelessnessnsw.org.au.
Shelter NSW and the author sincerely thank the interviewees and organisations who generously contributed to this project, including Adam Farrar, Leonie King, Gary Moore, Southern Youth and Family Services, and Yfoundations.
Research for this report was undertaken from October 2012 to March 2013. The data in this paper are, to the best of the author’s knowledge, current as at March 2013. While every effort has been made to ensure the information is up-to-date and accurate, socio-economic conditions, public policy and the law are constantly changing. Shelter NSW accepts no responsibility for any errors resulting from unforeseen inaccuracies or for damage or loss suffered by any individual or agency as a result. Readers are advised to seek professional advice and refer to relevant legislation, as necessary, before taking action in relation to any matters covered by this document.
Contents
Executive summary ...... 1
Introduction ...... 4 Context ...... 4 The research project ...... 5 Methodology ...... 6
1. Building blocks ...... 7 1.1 Funding for homelessness capital programs pre-CAP...... 7 1.2 The Crisis Accommodation Program ...... 8 1.2.1 Establishment ...... 8 1.2.2 CAP guidelines 2006 ...... 9 1.2.3 The end of CAP ...... 11 1.3 Supported Accommodation Assistance Program ...... 12 1.3.1 Aim ...... 12 1.3.2 Implementation ...... 12 1.4 Public housing ...... 14 1.5 Community housing ...... 14
2. Stocktake of CAP properties ...... 17 2.1 Number of properties ...... 17 2.2 CAP as a proportion of the total NSW social housing sector...... 18 2.2 Distribution of CAP properties ...... 21 2.2.1 Regional distribution of CAP properties ...... 21 2.2.2 Regional distribution of specialist homelessness services compared to regional distribution of CAP properties ...... 22 2.2.3 Regional distribution of CAP properties by specialist homelessness service type ...... 24
3. Maintenance and management of CAP properties ...... 25 3.1 Background ...... 25 3.2 Maintenance ...... 27 3.2.1 The responsibility for maintenance up to 2012 ...... 27 3.2.2 The standard and timeliness of maintenance ...... 28 3.2.3 Undertaking maintenance in the future ...... 31 3.2.4 Paying for maintenance of CAP properties ...... 33 3.2.5 Insurance on CAP properties ...... 40 3.2.6 Tenancy management...... 41 3.2.7 Registration as community housing provider ...... 44
4. The use of CAP properties ...... 47 4.1 Who is accommodated in CAP properties? ...... 47 4.1.1 Demographic characteristics ...... 47
4.1.2 Changing client needs ...... 48 4.2 Lengths of stay in CAP properties ...... 51 4.3 Specialist homelessness service and community housing provider CAP partnerships ...... 53 4.4 Specialist homelessness service offices in CAP properties ...... 57
5. The place of CAP properties in the future homelessness response continuum . 59 5.1 Going Home Staying Home ...... 59 5.2 CAP properties in the homelessness response continuum ...... 60 5.3 Exit points from CAP...... 62 5.3.1 Waiting lists for social housing ...... 63 5.3.2 Housing Pathways ...... 63 5.3.3 The lack of social and affordable rental housing ...... 66 5.4 The shape of specialist homelessness services in the future ...... 68
Acronyms used in the text ...... 70 Appendix 1. Shelter NSW Crisis Accommodation Program project consultation questions ...... 71
Appendix 2. CAP Properties by local government area and Housing NSW region .. 72 Central Coast ...... 72 Coastal Sydney ...... 73 Greater Western Sydney ...... 74 Hunter ...... 75 Illawarra ...... 75 New England ...... 76 North Coast ...... 77 Riverina Murray ...... 78 South-East ...... 79 Western ...... 80
Endnotes ...... 81
Executive summary
This report is about the ‘state of play’ of the dwellings funded under the Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP) in New South Wales. The report covers the history of the program, explores how the properties are being used by specialist homelessness services and registered community housing providers, and looks at what role specialist homelessness services see for these dwellings part of a comprehensive response to homelessness.
Stocktake of CAP properties 1. While the number of CAP properties has increased overall by 82% in 16 years, there have been a decreasing number of properties entering the portfolio each year. 2. There has been a very large proportional increase in the number of properties leased from the private rental market under CAP (rather than being leased from the Land and Housing Corporation) — from 2% in 1999–2000 to 15% in 2009–10. 3. Sixty four per cent of all CAP properties are head-tenanted by specialist homelessness services. 4. The distribution of properties between metropolitan Sydney and regional New South Wales has remained unchanged since 1997, ranging between 48.8% and 51.2%. 5. Differences between the distribution of specialist homelessness services and CAP properties are likely to reflect both regional differences in the numbers of homeless persons in regions (demand for services) and the availability of suitable stock for purchase or lease (housing supply).
Maintenance and management of CAP properties 6. The practice in maintaining CAP properties, particularly those head-leased by specialist homelessness services, has been to draw a distinction between responsibility for responsive maintenance (small-scale day-to-day repairs necessary to maintain the safety, security and amenity of a dwelling) and planned/cyclical maintenance (large-scale and structural work related to long-term maintenance of the dwelling as an asset). All specialist homelessness services interviewed for this research stated that they have always undertaken responsive maintenance, and that Housing NSW and more recently community housing providers had been responsible for planned/cyclical maintenance. The specialist homelessness services- stewards interviewed for this research have had mixed experiences of maintenance from both Housing NSW and community housing providers. 7. Specialist homelessness services have always paid a range of rents on CAP properties under a range of leases developed ad hoc by area/regional offices of Housing NSW, and this rent has been used for cyclical/planned maintenance. Responsive maintenance is paid for from rents/board that specialist homelessness services collected from clients/residents. Specialist homelessness services managing medium-term/transitional accommodation typically charge tenants 25% of their income. Specialist homelessness services have more variation in what they charge clients in crisis services, ranging from $10 –$16 per night. 8. All the specialist homelessness services with transitional properties interviewed use the standard Residential Tenancy Agreement recommended by NSW Fair Trading. Specialist homelessness services use a range of other agreements in their crisis properties.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 1 9. All but one of the specialist homelessness services interviewed for this research have registered as community housing providers, with the majority as Class 4 and one as a Class 3. 10. In mid-April 2013, Housing NSW notified the specialist homelessness services managing transitional properties that new policies would be introduced that: enabled Commonwealth Rent Assistance for specialist homelessness service-managed transitional properties to be fully included in rent determination (commencing in January 2014); and required specialist homelessness services that continue to directly manage transitional properties to use collected rents only for asset maintenance (from June 2015). These changes follow the outsourcing of specialist homelessness service-transitional property maintenance from Housing NSW contractors to approved Class 1and 2 community housing providers, and the issuing of revised leases (that run to 30 June 2014) to several specialist homelessness service-transitional housing providers earlier in 2013. The three homelessness peak organisations, Yfoundations, the NSW Women’s Refuge Movement and Homelessness NSW, are currently engaged in discussions with Housing NSW about the significant impacts of these new policies. These changes are occurring within the same environment of and timeframes for the broader Going Home Staying Home reform agenda of the NSW Government for homelessness services.
The use of CAP properties 11. The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program/CAP has focussed on four main target groups that reflect the birth of the program from pre-existing programs (as outlined in section 1 of this report): young people aged from 16 years to 18 years, with some services extending the age range to 25 years; women and children escaping domestic violence; single homeless adults; and families experiencing homelessness. All the specialist homelessness services interviewed for this research were established to accommodate one or other or a mix of these target groups, and they continue to do so. 12. The demographic profile of clients on gender and age has not changed significantly since Supported Accommodation Assistance Program/CAP began, but there has been a change in length of stay. There has been a more than doubling of the proportion staying 3–6 months from 4% in 2000–01 to 10% in 2010–11, and a tripling of the proportion staying more than 6 months from 4% in 2000–01 to 12% in 2010–11. The reasons given for this is that: services are increasingly having to house people with complex needs who take longer to skill up to be ‘home ready’ before transitioning them into long term housing; and the lack of exit points from crisis accommodation and transitional housing (that is, an inadequate supply of affordable rental housing for clients to move into). 13. Specialist homelessness services report both positive and negative experiences of their current partnerships with community housing providers in agreements on the separation of tenancy management from tenant support services. 14. Outside of a handful of instances, accommodation space is not being used for office space by CAP stewards except where the service is a crisis accommodation or other service with on- site staff.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 2 The place of CAP properties in the future homelessness response continuum 15. The CAP stewards interviewed for this project (both specialist homelessness services and community housing providers) all agreed that the provision of supported crisis and transitional housing is an integral part of the overall response to homelessness in New South Wales. 16. This research was begun prior to the release of the Going Home Staying Home Reform Plan in February 2013. While there were rumours and indications of the likely direction of reform at the time of the consultations for this report, nothing had been released from which to base any decisions about changing service delivery. Even so, many of this project’s interviewees were clearly re-assessing how their agencies delivered services (for example, some were anticipating a move towards more prevention and early intervention work) and how they utilised their CAP properties, and also how the properties fit into the broader homelessness response system.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 3 Introduction
Context This report is about the ‘state of play’ of the dwellings funded under the Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP) in New South Wales. The focus is on how they are being used by specialist homelessness services (SHSs, formerly services under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program or SAAP) and registered community housing providers, and what role providers of specialist homelessness services see for these dwellings as a component of a comprehensive response to homelessness.
In recent years, there have been a number of changes in public policy and in practice in the specialist homelessness services sector that have problematized a necessary, direct relationship between providing support to a homeless person while providing a housing service on a short- term to medium-term basis, i.e. to the model of supported accommodation of the SAAP/CAP type.1
In public policy, there has been:
. A greater focus on prevention and early intervention (‘turning off the tap’, in the words of the Commonwealth Government’s 2008 white paper on homelessness, The road home)2, rather than on crisis management; . A decline in the number of CAP dwellings available to specialist homelessness services; . The targeting to homeless people of new social-housing dwellings built under the Nation- Building Economic Stimulus Plan National Partnership (with a state-wide target of 40%). . The implementation of a legislative-based registration system for non-profit housing providers, which required specialist homelessness services to register as a ‘community housing provider’ (by May 2011) to be eligible to get (keep) assistance from Housing NSW and the Land and Housing Corporation.3 . The encouragement of community housing providers to take on/over the head-leasing of Land and Housing Corporation properties from specialist homelessness services, as for example, through a special subsidy to pay for property management of dwellings whose head-lease was transferred to them by a specialist homelessness service providing crisis accommodation.4
Those specialist homelessness services providing services out of the Land and Housing Corporation’s CAP properties that do not have a relationship with a housing association will have to have one in the future, following a proposal by Housing NSW to have housing associations (instead of the Land and Housing Corporation) undertake the repairs and maintenance of Land and Housing Corporation properties head-leased by specialist homelessness services.
In the specialist homelessness service sector’s practice, there has been:
. A renewed focus on providing long-term housing as an alternative model to providing crisis housing (here, ‘long-term’ is defined as secure or permanent housing, in as much as any social housing has this security) — the Foyer and Common Ground models are examples of what are generally called a ‘housing first’ approach.5
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 4 . A movement of multi-service welfare organisations that have had a role in supported accommodation into more generic affordable-rental housing (for example, MA Housing, the Salvation Army Social Housing Service, and On Track Community Programs), in which their expertise in providing welfare-support could be an advantage since many social-housing tenants have housing-related welfare-support needs.
Established community-housing providers have also been experimenting with different approaches towards being a housing provider: the ‘housing plus’ approach indicates delivery of a range of non-housing products.
Governmental orthodoxy follows a strict separation of roles between tenancy and property management (best done by a housing association) and the provision of welfare-support (best done by a welfare agency such as a specialist homelessness service).6 However, on the ground, it appears that things may not be so clear-cut. That approach is being used (for example, Platform 70 project in inner-Sydney) — but community housing associations are providing non-housing services (‘housing plus’), agencies with a background in providing welfare services are becoming social/affordable housing providers, and specialist homelessness services (that have become ‘registered community housing providers’) are providing housing with support. In this flux, this research project is to look at one aspect: the role of the CAP dwellings.
The research project Shelter NSW’s interest in homelessness focuses on the housing dimension of homelessness, rather than the provision of support services. This focus is not because welfare issues in homelessness are unimportant, but simply because a focus on the housing-specific dimension links in better with our interest in how mainstream housing markets and governments’ housing assistance programs can impact on homelessness.7 Provision of housing services on a short- to medium-term basis in situations of crisis and transition to permanent accommodation has been part of the existing suite of interventions, and this provision has been provided via dwellings (buildings) acquired under CAP.8
This project is about the current use of those 1,500 dwellings.
Three broad research questions were asked: . What is the state of the properties? . What use is being made of the properties, and has this changed from its original purpose? . Where do the stewards see the properties’ role in the homelessness response continuum, especially the specialist homelessness services that comprise nearly two-thirds (64%) of the head-tenants of the dwellings?
The second research question links in with a wider discussion about the role of crisis accommodation. Some of that conversation will occur around a ‘reform process’ for specialist homelessness services being undertaken by the NSW Government (Going Home Staying Home). That process does not explicitly address the matter of service models; it does refer to better resource allocation.9 While the origins of this project were exogenous to that government’s reform initiative, the discussions that this research project facilitates will be useful to the reform process.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 5 This Shelter NSW project is not a policy-development project. It is a research project focusing on some specific matters, and in relation to the second question, it seeks to identify ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ and a diversity of views, rather than arbitrate them.
Methodology The research was conducted through the following activities:
. A literature review of Commonwealth and state reports, evaluations, agreements, guidelines and other material about CAP, SAAP/SHS and social and community housing; . Consultations with CAP stewards through: . The 2012 annual general meeting of Homelessness NSW (the peak organisation for services to homeless people in NSW); . The December 2012 general meeting of Yfoundations (the peak organisation for youth homelessness and housing services in NSW); . Email and phone consultations with 12 CAP stewards who responded to a sector-wide request for research participants (the consultation questions are listed in Appendix 1); . Interviews with the Executive Officer of Homelessness NSW, the Executive Officer of Yfoundations and the former Executive Officer of the NSW Federation of Housing Associations (the peak organisation for community housing providers); . An interview with Leonie King, Executive Director, Community and Private Market Housing Directorate, Housing NSW, Department of Family and Community Services; . Interviews with three key individuals with long histories of service provision in the SAAP/SHS youth sector.
Five reports on the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program and CAP informed the development of the questions used in the consultations and interviews:
. ‘CAP Review’ (1995)10; . ‘Current Operations of the Crisis Accommodation Program’ (1998)11; . ‘Report of the NSW SAAP Evaluation’ (1998)12; . ‘CAP Mapping Project’ (1999)13; . ‘Crisis Accommodation Program Review’ (2004).14
The field work for this report was undertaken between October 2012 and March 2013.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 6 1. Building blocks
The history and development of CAP is integrally connected with that of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program and specialist homelessness services, the community housing sector and the public housing sector. This section of the report describes these four ‘building blocks’ in broad terms as background for the discussions of the findings of the present research. All three areas have undergone policy and program changes in their years of their operation, and the most relevant to the current research are described. Others will be referred to when appropriate to the discussion in following sections of this report.
1.1 Funding for homelessness capital programs pre-CAP By 1984, there were three Commonwealth Government programs providing limited capital funding for the provision of accommodation for homeless people:
. The Homeless Persons Assistance Program provided funding to non-government organisations assisting single homeless men (this was mainly capital funds with some recurrent funding); . The women’s refuge program was comprised of significant amounts of recurrent funding and some capital funding (this program was transferred to state and territory governments as part of general revenue grants in 1981); . The pilot Youth Services Scheme was primarily a recurrent-funding program with a limited level of capital funds (some states had also established programs for youth). 15
Reviews of these Commonwealth programs had found that: . Lack of affordable housing constrained the effectiveness of crisis accommodation arrangements; . Funding of at least some services was inadequate; . Long-term accommodation options were required for youth; . The existing arrangements were not meeting needs; . Arrangements for planning and coordination across the three existing programs were inadequate; . Properties were generally poor-quality stock, which had often been identified for demolition; . Demand exceeded supply and therefore overcrowding was common; . There was a lack of secure accommodation, characterised by the short-term tenure of housing and requirements to vacate at short notice; . Funding processes were unpredictable and complicated; . There was a need to ‘acquire’ accommodation at little or no cost; . There was a lack of long-term accommodation and a predominance of [very] short-term crisis accommodation.16
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 7 1.2 The Crisis Accommodation Program
1.2.1 Establishment The response to this situation was the establishment by the Commonwealth of two integrally- related programs: the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program and the Crisis Accommodation Program. From 1984, the Commonwealth–State Housing Agreements included a component designated for CAP.17 The agreement involved Commonwealth subsidies (grants) to the state housing authorities for the purpose of constructing and acquiring dwellings to be used for crisis accommodation. Those subsidies did not have to be matched by dollar-for-dollar contributions from the states.
The 1989 guidelines for CAP identify the salient features of the program at its establishment: 18
. CAP was a Commonwealth-funded program established under the 1984 Commonwealth – State Housing Agreement in accordance with Recital D of that agreement: the primary principle was to ensure that every person in Australia has access to secure adequate and appropriate housing at a price within his or her capacity to pay by seeking to: . Alleviate housing-related poverty; and . Ensure that housing assistance was, as far as possible, delivered equitably to persons resident in different forms of housing tenure.19 . This was to be achieved by providing dwellings to: . Organisations subsidised by the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, which assists people who are homeless and in crisis, through the provision of financial assistance to eligible organisations for transitional supported accommodation services and related support services; and/or . Other eligible organisations providing supported or unsupported accommodation services for people who are homeless and in crisis. . Supported accommodation services meant transitional accommodation services for people who were homeless and in crisis, and which were supported by related services directed at assisting these people move towards independent living, where appropriate, as soon as possible. . Unsupported accommodation services meant transitional accommodation services for people who, while being homeless and in crisis, were capable of independent living, and therefore either required no or a minimal amount of support services to assist their return to independent living, where appropriate, as soon as possible. . Funds were primarily to be used for capital purposes in the establishment of new or expanded/upgraded dwellings providing crisis accommodation, and could be used to: . Construct new dwellings; . Purchase land and/or buildings; . Head-lease dwellings; . Expand or upgrade dwellings; . Maintain/renovate dwellings; . Dwellings provided under CAP wholly through Commonwealth funds would be owned, head- leased or otherwise secured by the state housing authority.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 8 . Rent charged to eligible organisations for CAP-funded dwellings by the state housing authority was to be based on ‘Cost Rent Principles’ as set out in the 1989 Commonwealth– State Housing Agreement. This could be varied based on: . The financial capacity of eligible organisations, including where appropriate the circumstances of likely users; . Whether or not eligible organisations were responsible for meeting any outgoings associated with the property.
The 1995 review of CAP identified several reasons for the decision to establish CAP under the Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement and for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program to be a discrete program (that is, not under the Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement):
. Crisis accommodation should not be seen as separate from other forms of housing; . There was a need for housing other than crisis accommodation; . State housing authorities should be encouraged to provide a range of housing options, and not only ‘bricks and mortar’ responses; . State housing authorities should have responsibility for meeting the housing needs of all groups requiring assistance; . It was important to have a capacity to ‘swap’ stock between public housing and CAP, and therefore provide a flexible response to changing needs. . There was a perception that not all people with a crisis housing need also needed support, and that therefore a range of groups would receive funding other than Supported Accommodation Assistance Program services.20
1.2.2 CAP guidelines 2006 CAP was reviewed in 2004 as required under the 2003 Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement. The review found that:
. CAP had no explicit purpose or intent beyond providing for the needs of service providers and the homeless through state housing authorities or departments. . There were no current CAP objectives, aims or guidelines, and the reporting framework was inadequate. . In the absence of an explicit purpose and intent, guidelines and accountability framework, jurisdictions had been free to interpret the purpose and intent of CAP broadly or narrowly within the implied requirements of infrastructure responses to homelessness. This had provided maximum flexibility and given jurisdictions the opportunity to innovate.’ . There was a tension between meeting the twin objectives of meeting the needs of service providers and meeting the accommodation needs of homeless people. The need for infrastructure remains strong but actual expenditure is drifting away from the original focus of direct expenditure on ‘bricks and mortar’. The review suggested that this was perhaps a reflection of increasing client complexity, and/or the need for more flexible responses to facilitating access to infrastructure (with changes in policy affecting planning decisions, service coordination and models of service delivery). It concluded that it was not sufficient to respond to homelessness as a lack of infrastructure (that is, by simply providing accommodation).
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 9 . CAP had provided an essential infrastructure response required to support Supported Accommodation Assistance Program services. . Its overall conclusion was that: ‘A framework that makes it clear that while the ultimate client is the homeless, the direct clients of the program are the agencies providing services to the homeless, is proposed as a future option.’ 21
In response to the 2004 review, a new set of guidelines was adopted under which the program still operates in New South Wales. 22
CAP Objectives The objectives of CAP are to:
(A) Fund infrastructure involving the construction, acquisition and upgrading of crisis accommodation and related expenditure; and (B) Fund the development of infrastructure responses to homelessness to meet the specific needs of Indigenous people in all jurisdictions.
CAP Outcomes and Outputs CAP aims to achieve the following outcomes:
. To provide enhanced access to crisis accommodation for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness; and . To provide early assistance to people at risk of homelessness, to prevent homelessness occurring.
Contributing to the success of these outcomes are the following outputs:
. Effective use of existing infrastructure; . Improvements to the built environment supporting service delivery, including: . Accessibility including choice in accommodation and timeliness of access; . Security of tenure; . The appropriateness of the accommodation’s physical qualities to meet client needs; . The sustainability of funding arrangements to provide short-term and long-term repairs and maintenance to CAP properties …
Allowable uses of CAP funds include:
i. Purchase and construction of crisis accommodation; ii. Refurbishment, upgrading, repairs and maintenance of crisis accommodation; iii. Head-leasing from the private sector (both commercial and not-for-profit) of crisis and transitional accommodation; iv. Purchase, construction, refurbishment and/or upgrading of boarding houses; v. Purchase of hotel/motel accommodation or caravan accommodation for emergencies; vi. Funding for short- to medium-term transitional housing for clients who are exiting crisis accommodation or who would otherwise be eligible to access crisis accommodation; vii. Brokerage; viii. Services undertaking crisis outreach activities to homeless people.
From a strategic perspective, states and territories should apply at least 90 per cent of CAP funds to fund infrastructure responses to homelessness from those outlined in i. to vi. above.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 10 1.2.3 The end of CAP In 2009, the Council of Australian Governments (that is, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments) entered into the National Affordable Housing Agreement. The objective of the National Affordable Housing Agreement was to ensure that all Australians have access to affordable, safe and sustainable housing that contributes to social and economic participation. The National Affordable Housing Agreement replaced the former Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement as the framework for the Commonwealth to fund housing assistance to be delivered by the states and territories. CAP was absorbed in the National Affordable Housing Agreement and is no longer a separately identified program.
The National Affordable Housing Agreement is supported by the National Partnership Agreements on:
. social housing; . homelessness; . Indigenous Australians living in remote areas.
Outcomes specified in the National Affordable Housing Agreement that are relevant to the role of properties formerly funded under CAP are:
. People who are homeless or at risk of homelessness achieve sustainable housing and social inclusion. . People are able to rent housing that meets their needs.23
Outputs in the National Affordable Housing Agreement that are relevant to the role of the former CAP properties are:
. The number of people who are homeless or at risk who are assisted to secure and sustain their tenancies. . Number of people who are assisted to move from crisis accommodation or primary homelessness to sustainable accommodation. . Number of households in private rental receiving subsidies.24
States and territories alone are now responsible for determining the level of funds that will be directed to particular programs and services.25
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 11 1.3 Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
1.3.1 Aim CAP was established to provide dwellings for organisations subsidised under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, as the CAP guidelines above make clear.
The aim of SAAP was to provide transitional supported accommodation and related support services, to help people who were homeless to achieve their highest degree of self-reliance and independence. The goals were:
. To resolve crisis; . To re-establish family links where appropriate; . To re-establish a capacity to live independently of SAAP.26
This was to be achieved by:
. Providing or arranging for the provision of support services and supported accommodation; . Helping people who were homeless to obtain long-term, secure and affordable housing or accommodation and support services.27
The Act was implemented through five-year agreements between the Commonwealth and states/territories. Funding was provided by the Commonwealth and matched by the state/territory in varying proportions.
1.3.2 Implementation In NSW, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program was implemented through three sub-programs under the Department of Youth and Community Services:
. The General Supported Accommodation Program was mostly comprised of the large-scale homeless single men’s accommodation services, extending it to cover homeless single women’s accommodation services, accommodation services for homeless families and the then-existing Proclaimed Places for holding intoxicated persons for periods from 8 to 24 hours (which were often incorporated into single men’s accommodation services). . The Women’s Refuge Program comprised the already-existing program targeting women and children escaping domestic violence. . The Youth Supported Accommodation Program comprised the already-existing Youth Services Scheme.
In the earliest stages of both the Youth Supported Accommodation Program and the Women’s Refuge Program, the main model for supported accommodation was the use of an existing domestic premise of three–four bedrooms for short-term/crisis accommodation of up to three months for individuals from their target groups. Both were premised on utilising 24-hour live-in worker support, with one room in the premise being used as a combined office/bedroom for the worker. The residents were encouraged to see the space as a home, and were allowed to remain on the premises during the day. Residents were charged a nominal amount towards their food and lodging costs if they could afford it.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 12 The services were typically managed by a non-government organisation whose sole purpose was the provision of the service. Organisations had to be incorporated under the NSW Associations Incorporation Act 1984 (now superseded by the Associations Incorporation Act 2009). Some services were also established by religious charitable organisations.
The properties were head-leased to the non-government organisation initially by the Department of Housing, and now by the Land and Housing Corporation.
The General Supported Accommodation Program services were typically large institutions with multiple-occupancy rooms, where individuals were expected to leave the premises each day and sign in again each night. Food and lodging were provided at no cost to the resident. They were all managed by religious charitable organisations. Some slippage funds from CAP recurrent money was used to fund the refurbishment and reconfiguring of these from models of congregate care to more individualised accommodation units within a large establishment. These properties did not come under leasing arrangements with the Department of Housing.28
Within the first years of operation of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program, it became clear that other models were needed for the Youth Supported Accommodation Program and Women’s Refuge Program, for two reasons:
. The level of support needed for some of those in the target groups required a longer period of accommodation, with close supervision before they were able to live independently or return back to the family in the case of young people. . For young people in particular, there were few options for transitioning from supported accommodation into independent accommodation in either public housing or private rental accommodation.
This led to the establishment of what were then called medium-term accommodation programs (now, more often referred to as transitional accommodation) with a length of stay from six to 12 months. Accommodation was still in a domestic premise, either houses or units/flats. Workers were not on the premises overnight but one room would still in some cases operate as an office during working hours. Some services operated out of offices independent of the accommodation. Some of this accommodation was in the private market with the organisation acting as the head-lessee; some of it was funded through CAP.29
However there were some individuals in the target groups for these programs, and also for the General Supported Accommodation Program, who were able to live independently immediately on becoming homeless, or soon after. For these individuals, the model that emerged to cater for their needs was long-term supported housing: this model consisted of the individual or family entering into a lease directly with either the public housing lessor or private landlord, and support services were provided by the organisation (with workers located in a service office that was removed from the resident’s accommodation). In some cases, organisations would continue to act as the head-lessee, at least in the interim.
The 1997–1999 NSW SAAP/CAP plan acknowledged these changes in service delivery, by providing additional funding under an innovation component for ‘increased provision of CAP accommodation for homeless people with short to medium term SAAP support need who require long term housing’.30
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 13 In 2012 in New South Wales, 11% of all CAP properties were for crisis accommodation and 89% were for transitional accommodation.31
1.4 Public housing When the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program was first established, the main exit points sought for most clients were rental accommodation in the private market (for the majority) and also public housing.
Public housing is housing owned and managed by government housing authorities, usually aimed at low- and moderate-income earners. Mostly, public housing has been delivered to low- income earners by way of capital grants from the Commonwealth Government (with some state government matching requirements) ever since the introduction of the Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement in 1945.
In the half-century since then, public housing has ensured secure and affordable housing for low-and and sometimes moderate-income earners. Affordability and security of tenure have characterised it throughout that period, as distinct from the exigencies many people faced in the private rental market. For many of them, homeownership was never really an option, but public housing offered the nearest parallel to the security provided by homeownership.
Since that time, public housing has increasingly been transformed into welfare housing for the poor. Today, well over 90% of public housing tenants are on welfare benefits, with a massive increase over the past decade. With the target group becoming more narrowly defined to focus on low-income people with high and complex levels of need, the social objectives of public housing have also changed.
One of the significant client groups of SAAP/SHS, young people aged 12–18 years, have historically been excluded from access to public housing.
1.5 Community housing32 As the demand for public housing outstripped supply and waiting lists grew longer, increasing the hardship of those in the most marginal housing or who were homeless, community services, workers, activists and residents became concerned at the substantial numbers of unused government-owned housing properties, particularly in the Sydney area, but also in others areas, that could be used for housing people in crisis while longer term options were accessed. Two significant groups for whom there were growing concerns were women escaping domestic violence and young people in conflict with their families.
The government response to establish the Emergency Accommodation Unit as part of the Housing Commission aimed to use some of these properties to meet the identified need. Some properties were used to pilot the management of the premises by youth and women’s services and also other community housing groups, and a range of different approaches were developed.
In 1982, the Commonwealth Government introduced the Mortgage and Rent Relief scheme. New South Wales developed a scheme for using Rent Relief funds to create a community housing management model, and this became the Community Tenancy Scheme in 1984. The
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 14 Community Tenancy Scheme originated within the youth and community services portfolio, but was ultimately taken across to the housing portfolio.
Within a short space of time, there were around 20 Community Tenancy Scheme projects around the state, which rapidly expanded to a peak of 63. The Community Tenancy Scheme became the core of Community Housing Programs in the newly-named Department of Housing. Other community programs were the Local Government Housing Initiatives Program, the Community Properties Unit, the Singles Housing Unit, the Women’s Housing Unit, the Housing Information and Tenancy Services Unit, and the Emergency Accommodation Unit that comprised the Crisis Accommodation Program and the Special Purpose Housing Program.
At the time of its establishment, the objectives of the Community Tenancy Scheme were:
. To expand the base of housing provision by generating additional housing resources through pooling, with others, available capital, land, housing stock and human skills; . To develop strategies for the protection and retention of existing rental stock, particularly stock traditionally available to low-income tenants but which was now threatened by market forces; . To diversify the location, tenure arrangements and dwelling forms of public housing; . To increase access to long-term housing opportunities for low-income households unable to compete in the private market; . To focus on the housing needs of people who historically have not been eligible for public housing assistance, and to develop sensitive responses to particular kinds of housing need; . To give tenants increased opportunities to participate in the management of their housing and to further the development of sensitive housing management techniques at a local level; . To permit greater input into the formulation of housing policy by the community sector and housing consumers through the development of appropriate consultative mechanisms.33
Also in 1982, the Commonwealth provided funding for both local government and community housing projects through the Local Government and Community Housing Program, which became the Community Housing Program in 1993. This change also contributed to the rapid expansion of community housing: a 263% increase in nine years.
During the development of the community housing sector in the mid-1980s, roughly parallel developments took place in the Community Tenancy Scheme and in the development of a framework for resourcing housing co-operatives.
In 1994, a growth strategy was outlined to double the size of the community housing sector over the next five years (that is, till 1999).34
In the 1994–97 SAAP/CAP State Plan, the expansion of the community housing sector was identified as a strategy for expanding ‘the range of organisations providing accommodation in partnership with provision of support services’, with the broad aim being to ‘ensure that client’s support needs are addressed and that the accommodation provided is effectively managed and maintained ... The housing associations’ growth strategy [would] provide an opportunity to expand the range of organisations providing accommodation under the Crisis Accommodation Program and [would] assist in developing innovative and flexible housing models that more appropriately cater to clients’ needs. In particular, the strategy [would] encourage the
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 15 development of joint venture arrangements between providers of accommodation and support agencies.’35
The Office of Community Housing was established in 1996 within the Housing and Metropolitan Division of the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning (it was later transferred to Housing NSW). The charter of the Office of Community Housing was to undertake the strategic development of the community housing sector and to promote client-focused and efficient service delivery. Its role was to:
. Negotiate for resources for the community housing sector; . Administer and allocate these resources; . Develop the community-housing component of the housing assistance strategic plan; . Oversee the accreditation and monitoring of community housing providers; . Develop and monitor asset-management strategies.36
As of 2009, the Office of Community Housing was renamed the Community Housing Division (which became the Community and Private Market Housing Directorate in March 2013); it will be referred to by the name of the Community Housing Division in this report except where directly citing from documents reviewed for this report.
Community housing currently is most usually funded from government sources, together with revenue raised from rents (although these, too, are usually subsidised by government funding to enable rent to be charged at 25–30% of tenants’ incomes), or derived from other sources (for example, churches, charities, local government or private finance). Joint ventures may also, for example, involve the use of land or premises provided by bodies like local government or churches and charities. In most instances, the title of community housing properties is held by government (most usually by the state housing authorities). Community housing is government- funded in two ways:
. By providing funds to cover rebated rents on properties head-leased from the private sector (these funds may come from both Commonwealth Government sources (that is, via Commonwealth Rent Assistance) and state government sources); or . By providing housing (or ‘capital’) stock owned by state housing authorities and transferring them to the community housing sector.
From the earliest days of the Community Tenancy Scheme, community housing providers have also provided exit points for clients of SAAP/SHS, and it is in relation to this role that they are discussed in this report.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 16 2. Stocktake of CAP properties
This section focuses on the number and distribution of CAP properties — as part of assessing the current circumstances of the dwellings and how they are being used by specialist homelessness services and community housing providers.
2.1 Number of properties Table 1 shows the CAP portfolio from 1996–97 to 2011–12 as provided by the then Community Housing Division to Shelter NSW, and indicates whether they are owned by the Land and Housing Corporation or are leased on the private market.
Table 2 shows CAP property management data from the national data reports on SAAP/CAP produced by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare.37 This set of CAP data was begun under the 1999–2003 Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement. There are some small variations between these figures and those from the Community Housing Division for the years 2001–02, 2002–03, 2003–04 and 2004–05.
These tables show:
. The number of CAP properties has increased overall by 82% in 16 years, an average increase of 5% each year, with the largest increase in a single year from 1996–97 to 1997–98 from 813 to 909 (12% increase reflecting the significant increase for innovative projects outlined in the 1997–99 State SAAP/CAP Plan38). . The overall increase in the total number of CAP properties has been accompanied by a decrease in the proportion of support periods for homeless persons accessing specialist homelessness services that include a period of specialist homelessness accommodation, from 48% in 2006–07 to 32% in 2010–11.39 . However, there was a halving of properties entering the portfolio between 2003–04 and 2004–05, and this trend has continued generally, with a significant decrease between 2003– 04 and 2008–09 from 35 to 9 new properties (46% decrease). . New constructions form a very small proportion of additional dwellings, accounting for 11% in 2000–01, 8% in 2003–04, and 0% in 2001–02, 2002–03, 2003–04, 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08. The exception is in 2008–09 where they account for 77%. . However, there has been a very large increase in the number of properties leased from the private rental market under CAP (as opposed to being leased from the Land and Housing Corporation) — from 16 in 1999–2000 to a high of 237 in 2009–10 (a 1,500% increase). CAP funds have always been able to be used to head-lease dwellings from the private rental market.40 It was flagged in the 1994 NSW State SAAP/CAP Plan as an alternative model to construction that could provide an ‘appropriate housing solution to enable an accommodation response that was flexible and appropriate to meet the needs of clients’.41 However, the first properties were not leased from the private rental market until 1999. The proportion of properties leased from the private rental market as a total of CAP properties has increased from 2% in 1999–2000 to 15% in 2009–10. . At the same time, total capital expenditure was higher than average in the three years in which there were no new constructions: $21,205,700 in 2001–02; $11,937,000 in 2002–03; and $12,885,000 in 2004–05. It is unclear from the data as to what this is attributable to.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 17 . There was a loss of 40 properties between 2009–10 and 2010–11. This reportedly was because data for a time-limited program not actually funded through CAP was removed from the data pool.42 No additional properties were added or lost from 2010–11 to 2011–12. . Table 2 shows that there has been little deletion of stock from one year to the next, ranging from 0.2% in 2006–07 to the uncharacteristic high of 4% in 2000–01. It is notable that while the bilateral agreement for 2003–04 to 2007–08 made a commitment to replace ageing CAP properties, only 33 properties (3%) had been ‘deleted’ from the stock as at 2008–09.43
2.2 CAP as a proportion of the total NSW social housing sector Table 3 shows the number of NSW social housing dwellings for the years 2004–2012, excluding Aboriginal community housing which is an independent sub-sector of the community housing sector.
The figures show:
. CAP properties always have been a very small part of the social sector housing stock in these years (never more than 1%). . There has only been a 3% increase in mainstream social housing in that time (that is, excluding CAP and Aboriginal Housing Organisation dwellings. . The growth in the mainstream community housing sector largely has been through stock transfer from mainstream public housing, plus some new stock generated via the Social Housing Initiative of the Nation-Building Economic Stimulus Plan (see later).
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 18 Table 1. CAP properties 1997–2012
1996– 1997– 1998– 1999– 2000– 2001– 2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2008– 2009– 2010– 2011– 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 Properties 998 1,039 1,068 1,111 1,166 1,188 1,209 1,249 1,272 1276 1,301 1,262 1,286 owned Properties 16 39 173 199 213 226 230 235 230 235 237 236 212 leased Total 813 909 949 1,014 1,078 1,241 1,310 1,379 1,414 1,439 1,484 1,502 1511 1,538 1,498 1,498
Table 2. CAP properties and expenditure 2000–2009
2000–01 2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 Crisis accommodation 1,013 1,070* 1,215* 1,285 1,355 1,414 1,439 1,484 1,502 dwellings at end of previous *** financial year Crisis accommodation 1,078 1,216 1,285 1,355 1,394 1,439 1,484 1,502 1,511 dwellings Additional dwellings 104 153 79 77 44 29 48 28 13 New constructions 12 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 10 Dwellings deleted from stock 39 7 9 7 5 4 3 10 4 Capital expenditure ($,000) 8,716 21,205.7 11,937.0 8,097 12,885 9,103 7,960 7,952 5,809 Amount spent on housing Not Not Not Not Not Not 2,639 2,853 3,589 maintenance ($,000) recorded recorded recorded recorded recorded recorded ****
Table 3. NSW social housing dwellings (not including Aboriginal community housing)
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 19 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 2011–12 Mainstream public housing 128,270 127,627 126,243 125,171 124,086 121,662 120,380 119,184 Mainstream community 12,241 12,891 14,140 15,397 16,141 18,910 24,584 25,894 housing Subtotal mainstream dwellings 140,511 140,518 140,383 140,568 140,230 140,572 144,964 145,078 Aboriginal Housing Office 4,202 4,282 4,321 4,248 4,296 4,525 4,525 5,237 Crisis accommodation 1,414 1,439 1,484 1,502 1,538 1,498 1,498 1,498 Total of all dwellings 146,127 146,239 146,188 146,318 145,994 146,406 150,987 151,813
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 20 2.2 Distribution of CAP properties
2.2.1 Regional distribution of CAP properties The 1994–97 NSW SAAP/CAP Plan announced the introduction of an interim state-wide needs- assessment model for the distribution of CAP funds.44 The plan stated that the model was based on ‘key indicators currently available on a Local Government Area basis’, and included the total number of Department of Housing applicants, active applicants for Aboriginal housing, the number of Rent Assistance interviews, priority housing applications and recipients of the then Commonwealth Department of Social Security Rent Assistance.45
Table 4 compares the distribution of CAP properties in 1997 to that in 2013, with the 1997 percentage reflecting the regional distribution of CAP program funds in 1994–95 and 1995–96 under the interim needs assessment.46 The table shows:
. No variation in the proportion of properties in metropolitan Sydney between 1997 and 2013; . Decreases in Northern, South-Eastern and Western NSW; . All of the increase in these years has been in the Hunter; . The ratio of metropolitan Sydney to regional NSW has remained unchanged, at 48.8% to 51.2%.
Table 4. Regional distribution of CAP properties showing actual and proposed
1997 region % as at Regional 2013 region % as at November July 199747 Needs Index 201249 (%) as at July 199748 Metropolitan Sydney 48.8% 59.3% Coastal Sydney & Greater 48.8% Western Sydney Hunter 10.0% 10.9% Hunter & Central Coast 15.6% Northern 17.5% 14.4% New England & North 16.7% Coast South-Eastern 13.8% 8.2% South Eastern & Illawarra 13.2% Western 9.9% 7.2% Western & Riverina Murray 5.7%
Note: For the purposes of comparison of distribution, the 10 2013 regions have been grouped together in five pairs that in the researcher’s best guess correspond with the 1997 regions.50
Table 5 looks at the 2012 regional distribution in terms of CAP properties managed by specialist homelessness services and CAP properties not managed by specialist homelessness services (which are largely managed by community housing providers and a small number of which are managed by other community-based non-housing organisations). There is no available data to compare this with the situation in 1997.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 21 Table 5. 2012 CAP regional distribution: SHS and non-SHS51
Region Regional SHS Regional SHS Regional non- Regional % of total % of total CAP (N) CAP % SHS CAP (N) non-SHS SHS CAP non-SHS CAP CAP % (N = 874) (N = 485) Central Coast 39 72% 15 28% 5% 3% Coastal Sydney 276 58% 125 42% 32% 26% Greater 189 61% 124 39% 22% 26% Western Sydney Hunter 62 43% 80 57% 7% 16% Illawarra 110 85% 21 15% 13% 4% New England 21 33% 42 67% 2% 9% North Coast 94 64% 53 36% 10% 11% Riverina Murray 32 82% 7 18% 4% 1% South-Eastern 22 63% 13 37% 2% 3% Western 29 85% 5 15% 3% 1% Total 874 485
Table 5 shows: . 64% of all CAP properties are head-leased by specialist homelessness services. . Generally, there are proportionally more SHS properties than non-SHS properties, except in the Hunter (43% SHSs to 57% non-SHSs) and New England (33% SHSs to 67% non-SHSs). . The greatest proportional differences between SHS properties and non-SHS properties are in the Central Coast (72% SHSs to 28% non-SHSs), Illawarra (85% SHSs to 15% non-SHSs), Riverina Murray (82% SHSs to 18% non-SHSs) and Western (85% SHSs to 15% non-SHSs). . The greatest differences in absolute numbers of properties are in Coastal Sydney (276 SHSs to 125 non-SHSs), Greater Western Sydney (189 SHSs to 124 non-SHSs) and Illawarra (110 SHSs to 21 non-SHSs). . Hunter and New England stand out as two regions that have proportionally much more non- SHSs of the total non-SHSs than they do SHSs. Illawarra goes against trend in the other direction, having proportionally a much larger share of total SHSs than it does of non-SHSs.
2.2.2 Regional distribution of specialist homelessness services compared to regional distribution of CAP properties The 1998 NSW SAAP evaluation criticised the lack of planning coordination between the Department of Community Services for the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program and Office of Community Housing for CAP:
Perhaps the most important aim of joint planning is matching CAP stock with SAAP support capacity to achieve a balanced service provision.
Historically, SAAP/CAP planning has been separately undertaken by SAAP and CAP, with CAP regarded as little more than a capital input to SAAP, with the allocation of recurrent SAAP funding dictating the expenditure of CAP capital.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 22 Over recent years, housing administrators have increasingly sought to allocate their resources in accordance with a needs-based planning approach, and relevant needs-based indices for housing assistance have been developed. CAP funding has been distributed across area and target groups according to relative housing needs, without necessarily considering the availability of recurrent SAAP funding to ensure the provision of support to client in CAP accommodation. This has led to an imbalance in some areas between CAP properties and the capacity of SAAP services to provide support.52
A commitment to coordinated planning was made in both the 1997–1999 SAAP/CAP Strategic Plan and the 2000–2003 CAP Strategic Directions.53
Table 6 shows the regional distribution of SHS-organisations compared with the regional distribution of SHS CAP properties. It is evident that there are differences between the two: substantial differences in some regions. However, the differences may not reflect poor coordinated planning. For example, the Coastal Sydney region incorporates the Inner City and Inner West areas of Sydney which have historically had a large number of homeless (particularly single men who have been served by a small number of large charitable homelessness organisations) — so it might be expected that the proportion of CAP properties is not equivalent to the number of SHS organisations. Similarly, the smaller proportion of CAP properties relative to specialist homelessness service organisations in New England, South- Eastern and Western NSW may reflect the lack of suitable stock in those regions, in both the public and private sectors.
Table 6. Regional distribution of SHS compared with percentage regional distribution of SHS CAP properties (percentage)
Region % of total SHS54 % of total SHS CAP
Central Coast 5% 5% Coastal Sydney 23% 32% Greater Western Sydney 25% 22% Hunter 9% 7% Illawarra 5% 13% New England 6% 2% North Coast 9% 10% Riverina Murray 4% 4% South Eastern 9% 2% Western 6% 3%
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 23 2.2.3 Regional distribution of CAP properties by specialist homelessness service type In 2012, 11% of all CAP properties were for crisis accommodation and 89% were for transitional accommodation.55
Table 7 shows a breakdown of all CAP properties by region, service type and steward:
. While there are large variations in the number of SHS crisis properties across the regions, the number of non-SHS crisis services varies only by one or two across regions (within a range of 2–5). . Greater Western Sydney has the largest number of crisis CAP properties, and also the largest number of SHS crisis properties (12), compared to the number of non-SHS crisis properties (4). . Illawarra has the largest number of SHS transitional properties (102), compared to the number of non-SHS transitional properties (19). . The Hunter and North Coast are the only regions where the number of non-SHS transitional properties is greater than the number of SHS transitional properties.
Table 7. 2012 CAP regional distribution crisis and transitional by SHS/non-SHS steward56
Region SHS Regional Non- Regional SHS Regional Non- Regional crisis % SHS % transit- % SHS % crisis ional transit- ional Central Coast 5 9% 2 4% 34 63% 13 24% Coastal Sydney 19 6% 3 1% 157 52% 122 41% Greater 36 12% 4 1% 153 49% 120 38% Western Sydney Hunter 6 4% 3 2% 56 39% 77 55% Illawarra 8 6% 2 1% 102 79% 19 14% New England 5 8% 2 4% 16 25% 40 63% North Coast 13 9% 3 2% 81 55% 50 34% Riverina 3 8% 5 13% 29 74% 2 5% Murray South-Eastern 2 6% 5 14% 20 57% 8 23% Western 10 29% 4 12% 19 56% 1 3%
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 24 3. Maintenance and management of CAP properties
This section continues assessing the present circumstances of the dwellings and how they are being used by specialist homelessness services and community housing providers, here focusing on the issues of maintenance and management.
The questions for stewards and key stakeholders as part of the research for this report were:
. What is the current physical condition of the properties? When was the last property condition review and who undertook it? Will they require significant repair and maintenance in the near future? Who does the maintenance on the properties at present? . Under what terms are the properties leased from the Land and Housing Corporation? . Is rent collected from those accommodated? What is the rent used for? . What insurance cover is there on the properties? . Who manages the properties on a day-to-day basis? If not the non-government organisation, who manages the properties and under what terms?
3.1 Background The good management of CAP properties has been a constant theme in Bilateral Agreements between the Commonwealth and New South Wales, SAAP/CAP NSW State Plans and national evaluations of CAP.
The 2000–2003 CAP Strategic Directions document put the concern succinctly:
As most emphasis has been on the acquisition, upgrading and maintenance of individual CAP properties there has not been a strategic approach to the management of the sizable CAP asset base ... Given that many properties were initially acquired in the 1970s and early 1980s there are issues about the size of maintenance liabilities and backlog as well as the appropriateness of the configuration of properties.57
The 1999 bilateral agreement was clear about what it saw as the role of CAP and looked to: ‘Increasing the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of the delivery of housing assistance under CAP, in conjunction with SAAP, through the application of housing service management standards for crisis accommodation and utilising the housing management expertise and capacity of the broader housing sector’58 (emphasis added).
The 2000 CAP Strategic Directions document proposed strategies for implementing this commitment.
Strategic direction 4: Improving the quality of housing management Reporting on housing related issues has not been central to SAAP data collection and there have been no requirements under CAP for regular reporting. This lack of formal accountability together with a sector which is characterised by a large number of organisations who each manage a small portfolio of accommodation has meant there is wide variation in housing management practice ...
Given the significant level of investment in the CAP portfolio ... more emphasis will be placed on improving housing management outcomes by SAAP providers.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 25 As part of these changes it will be important to differentiate the functions of accommodation and support whether these services are provided by one agency or in a partnership between support and housing providers...As the actual cost of sustaining CAP properties long term has not been transparent many SAAP services have become reliant on client rental income to supplement their existing support services rather than using client rent for housing management costs. It is recognised that transitional support will be required by some SAAP services to maintain the level of support services if the cost of long term housing management is to be separately identified.
Strategies 27. Introduce housing service management criteria (including responsiveness and planned maintenance and rent management) for crisis accommodation properties. 28. Develop performance measures and reporting requirements for CAP properties to improve accountability for crisis accommodation provision. 29. Assist SAAP services utilise the capacity of the broader community housing sector for housing management (including fee for service arrangements, shared systems, mentoring) to improve the quality and efficiency of housing management and focus SAAP resources on support services. 30. Allocate additional CAP properties to organisations where there is demonstrated housing management capacity. 31. Promote the development and implementation of model service agreements defining housing and support roles for CAP/SAAP and community housing providers, to improve client housing and support outcomes. 32. Investigate cost effective options to deliver the property management services for CAP as an alternative to the Office of Community Housing directly providing these services. 33. Assist CAP services reduce vacancy arrears and apply the most appropriate tenant rent policy to increase the viability of CAP accommodation.59
The crux of the issue is the development of a belief that client support should be separated from tenancy management, and implementing the regulation and policies that now have embedded the separation in practice.
This issue was one raised by at a series of community open meetings in 2001 hosted by the Supported Accommodation Advisory Council. The response from the Office of Community Housing was:
Issue: Concerns about the trend towards separation of housing and support.
Response: The trend is based on two issues:
a. There is a need to ensure that housing stock is appropriately managed to ensure that the NSW Government’s investment in housing stock for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness is appropriately maintained … Support services do not have the expertise to ensure that housing stock is appropriately maintained. b. There is a view that tenants and clients of services are better served by the separation of tenancy and support service functions. 60
No evidence was put forward to support the statement that specialist homelessness services ‘do not have the expertise’ to appropriately maintain stock. Specialist homelessness services had been stewards of stock for 16 years since CAP began; no review of SAAP/CAP had indicated that they were any better or worse managers of the properties than either state housing authorities or community housing providers.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 26 The 2004 national review of CAP said this:
The importance of separating the tenancy management function from the support role offered to clients is viewed differently in different jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have argued that it is appropriate to separate these roles, particularly for transitional housing, for a variety of reasons including:
. It offers clients choice; . It facilitates more seamless transitions into unsupported public housing; . It may reduce neighbourhood fatigue; . It relieves agencies of some of the ‘non-core’ roles such as neighbour management and pursuit of rent arrears.
Some service providers have argued, on the other hand, that control over [the] tenancy management function facilitates a more holistic and flexible response to client circumstances:
. Overall management of client finances can result in more flexibility and tolerance of client circumstances which can lead to better outcomes for clients and payments of rent arrears; . Contingency management based service delivery can utilise the greater control over clients’ circumstances.61
The review concluded that: ‘In general terms, it seems better to separate property management functions from client support roles where possible.’62 However, the review offered no evidence for this conclusion by way of examples of good or bad property management practices by SHS CAP stewards, or good or bad outcomes for clients.
In New South Wales, the particular drivers of the separation have been:
. Concerns of the growing deficit in the CAP maintenance budget and a belief that rents collected by SHS were not being used for responsive maintenance but to top up operational budgets and that some SHS have more generally been poor property managers; . Concerns for the protection of tenant rights in transitional accommodation; . Reforms more generally in property management policies by the NSW Government, which have focussed attention on the asset management of community housing properties including CAP properties.63
3.2 Maintenance
3.2.1 The responsibility for maintenance up to 2012 The 1989 CAP guidelines stated that states could use CAP funds for maintenance and renovation of dwellings. The guidelines however did not specify who should undertake the maintenance — the SAAP service, the state housing authority or private contractors. 64
In the 2000–2003 CAP Strategic Directions document, the Office of Community Housing stated that it was responsible for all maintenance and for repairing tenant damage, for which separate insurance is held as part of the Community Housing Insurance Scheme.65
The 2006 Office of Community Housing CAP Program Guidelines are silent on the issue of maintenance.66
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 27 The practice of maintaining the CAP properties, particularly those head-leased by specialist homelessness services, has been to draw a distinction between responsibility for responsive maintenance (small scale day-to-day repairs necessary to maintain the safety, security and amenity of a dwelling) and planned/cyclical maintenance (large-scale and structural work related to the long-term maintenance of the dwelling as an asset).
All specialist homelessness services interviewees for this research stated that they have always undertaken responsive maintenance, and that Housing NSW has been responsible for the planned/cyclical maintenance. This was confirmed by Housing NSW.
Housing NSW currently administers the maintenance of around 750 properties used for crisis and transitional accommodation. These properties are leased mainly to Specialist Homelessness Services.67
Specialist homelessness services have undertaken responsive maintenance through local private contractors. Housing NSW has undertaken planned/cyclical maintenance, through a mix of internal maintenance staff (most recently, through its business arm Resitech), and private contractors where this has not logistically been practical. For most of the period of CAP, specialist homelessness services have been able to raise orders with their Area/Regional office of Housing NSW. More recently, all requests for work have had to be made to the Housing NSW Contact Centre located in Sydney.
Like specialist homelessness services, when community housing providers were initially established, they were responsible for responsive maintenance and Housing NSW was responsible for planned/cyclical maintenance. In the early 2000s, this too was changed, and community housing providers became responsible for both forms of maintenance. This applies to CAP properties head-leased by community housing providers.
3.2.2 The standard and timeliness of maintenance Housing NSW expects no major impacts for the specialist homelessness services from the new arrangement, and has assured them that they will receive a comparable level of service to what they have been receiving. But what has been the experience of maintenance by specialist homelessness services of their CAP properties to date?
The 1995 national review of CAP was critical of the lack of asset management of CAP stock by the state housing authorities, finding that it had been limited by:
. Ambivalence regarding the ‘ownership’ of the stock; . Lack of forward-planning and an emphasis in planning on the allocation of additional funds; . Lack of information about the condition of the accommodation.68
The review noted that funded organisations were responsible for initiating action on maintenance — and that with the exception of minor maintenance, it was generally undertaken by the state housing authority. These arrangements, the review said, led to:
. Considerable variations in the level of maintenance between CAP properties depending on the skills and priorities of the funded service; . State housing authorities not having a regular program of inspection;
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 28 . Some state housing authorities being concerned that funded organisations (specialist homelessness services) were not maintaining their properties, but also having limited information on the condition of CAP stock; . Funded organisations being concerned that housing authorities were not always responsive or sensitive in undertaking maintenance work (in relation to timeliness, poor standard of work and the insensitivity of tradespeople); . Cyclical maintenance arrangement by housing authorities not taking into account the higher maintenance requirements in SAAP properties, because of the nature of those housed and the high turnover of occupants.69
The 1998 NSW evaluation of SAAP was also critical of the level of maintenance of CAP properties.
There has been concern expressed about the difficulty of organising maintenance of CAP properties despite expenditure of $4 million on maintenance in 1997–98. Maintenance standards are required, and responsibilities for maintenance and funding need to be clarified. This involves identifying which organisation is best placed to carry out the role, and which program has financial responsibility for resourcing the role. It is suggested that OCH implement a Crisis Accommodation Standards Project with the aim of identifying design guidelines for good practice in crisis accommodation. OCH should identify replacement/redevelopment/-upgrading of existing crisis accommodation which does not meet design guidelines as a priority for CAP expenditure in 1998– 99.70
The 1998 CAP Mapping Project found, with respect to maintenance of CAP properties in New South Wales, that:
. 85% of agencies said that the state housing authority was involved in maintenance of their accommodation units. . 34% said that the quality of maintenance undertaken by the state housing authority was good, 46% said it was average, and 20% said it was poor. . 22% said that the timeliness of maintenance undertaken by the state housing authority was good, 41% said it was average, and 37% said it was poor.71
With respect to the condition of the dwellings in New South Wales, the Mapping Project found that 31% were rated as being in very good condition, 31% were in good condition, 27% were in average condition, 10% in poor condition, and 1% in very poor condition.72
In its CAP Strategic Directions 2000–03, the Office of Community Housing identified that ‘the average age of CAP properties is over 20 years’.73 Table 2 of this research report shows that there has been little deletion of stock from one year to the next. This means that the average CAP property now is over 30 years old.
In its 2002–11 CAP Delivery Plan, the Office of Community Housing committed to:
. Developing design guidelines for crisis and supporting housing; . Undertaking condition audits of 1,000 CAP properties; and . Developing two-year asset improvement plans for CAP properties.74
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 29 In 2004, the national evaluation of CAP was able to report that there ‘were indications from stakeholders that there have been large and significant improvements in both the security and quality of accommodation available to them.’75
Specialist homelessness service stewards interviewed for the present research have had mixed experiences of maintenance from both Housing NSW and community housing providers.
We had a property condition report done fairly recently by Housing. That was the first one in the last two years. We’ve put a lot of money into the properties. We’ve replaced a lot of things. We put nearly $80,000 into one property five years ago. A city-based specialist homelessness service steward hosted by a large charitable organisation which manages a number of CAP properties
We’ve had the property for 15 years now. As of last year we have handed over the property maintenance to [a community housing provider]. They came and did a property inspection and did a lot of improvements to get it to their standard. The property was in excellent condition anyway. They were surprised — it wasn’t like a lot of the other properties they have to deal with. Specialist homelessness service steward managing a single crisis CAP-property in a small coastal town
The condition (of the CAP properties) varies. A number of our properties are quite elderly to put it nicely, probably 40 years some of them and they could do with some upgrades, but they’re reasonable. I don’t know when our last property condition review from Housing [NSW] was and I couldn’t tell you on each individual one. We probably get one or two a year but I couldn’t tell you because we don’t maintain those records. Housing just organises a tenant to be there to do it. We never get any report back from Housing on the inspections. We do our own property inspections too and then we raise orders for what’s required. Specialist homelessness service steward in Western Sydney with 7 semi-supported transitional CAP properties
I’ve been here 20 years and the inside the refuge has been painted once, so we will actually be painting the refuge this year because we can’t live with it like that anymore. It’s not conducive to the workers’ health and safety. The flooring in all of them has that gorgeous grey lino that doesn’t wear that well, and no matter how well we steam clean them they don’t come up well. But anything like holes in the walls we fix immediately we don’t leave that till the end of the year. I would say (the properties) are in reasonable condition. It’s about our women’s wellbeing so we don’t want them going in to hovels. We do all that we can to make them reasonably comfortable and well maintained. We don’t leave the gardens up to the clients anymore, that was always problematic — so their lawns and the maintenance of their gardens are included in their rent as well. The yards are always kept well so we don’t have neighbours complaining. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis CAP and three transitional CAP properties in a large coastal town
We have had an ongoing relationship with [a community housing provider] for about 7 years. Our houses were really run down and we were unsure where the responsibility lay for the cyclical repairing. We were very lucky to get a one-off grant to refurbish all the houses. That was tendered out and [the community housing provider] got the tender and we were very happy with the work they did. I think the competitive edge we get with a CHP meant that we were able to have more scope for leveraging what we needed done than with a large bureaucracy. It’s costly to maintain the houses and for us it may be better to relinquish the houses, de-register as a housing provider and make an
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 30 agreement on nomination rights with the CHP. We are probably $20–30000 a year under funded and the host organisation tops up the money. Specialist homelessness service steward of CAP transitional properties
3.2.3 Undertaking maintenance in the future Two reforms to maintenance of CAP properties will bring significant change from 2013.
New leases Under changes to the NSW Housing Act 2001, the Community and Private Market Housing Directorate of Housing NSW was required to update and reissue all of its contractual agreements, including those to community housing providers and specialist homelessness services. New leases are to be rolled out to specialist homelessness services as current leases expire.
Conditions under the new leases will include:
. Housing NSW or its nominated agent remains responsible for repairs and maintenance. (Note: The researcher has not viewed the new lease and is unaware whether the lease makes a distinction here between responsive and cyclical/planned repairs and maintenance). . SHS providers are required to keep the property in good order and report the need for repairs promptly. 76
Specialist homelessness services will also have to comply with an Asset Management Policy for community housing under which:
. Stock must be maintained at an acceptable standard that minimises the need for recurrent and extensive maintenance. . Providers must comply with the NSW Residential Tenancies Act 2010 requirement that a landlord provides the residential premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and fit for habitation. 77
Leases will stand until the end of June 2014 —with roll-over provisions to allow leases beyond then to align with the timetable for the Going Home Staying Home sector reforms and any subsequent funding rounds.
Outsourcing the maintenance of crisis and transitional accommodation properties The use of contractors through Housing NSW’s Housing Contact Centre for all responsive maintenance requests ceased from 1 February 2013. The reason given for this was that a centralised maintenance delivery system was not suited to the unique needs of specialist homelessness services; this was due to the nature of the client base (by which they mean in particular young people and women and children escaping domestic violence) and the complexity of the issues that are dealing with on a day-to-day basis.
The proposed outsourcing of maintenance resulted in the specialist homelessness service crisis and transitional properties being grouped into 8–10 location-based packages, that were offered
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 31 either directly or via an expression of interest process to community housing providers to manage on a fee-for-service basis.
It is expected that this will:
. Strengthen local relationships; . Build capacity; . Take advantage of localised and responsive service provision; . Result in efficiencies and quality improvements; . Result in quicker resolution of issues at a local level. 78
This change builds on a 2010–11 program under which Housing NSW funded 13 community housing providers to carry out planned maintenance on CAP properties across the state on a fee-for-service basis.
The move is welcomed by some interviews for the present research; others continue to have concerns.
I have to say that the relationship we have with the [community housing provider] undertaking the maintenance is very, very good, a lot better than we had with Housing [NSW] in terms of the speed of response and also the quality of the work. Specialist homelessness service steward with a mix of crisis and transitional CAP properties
Our CAP/SAAP properties are fairly average because we have not been able to do preventative maintenance ... We have one or two properties where we have a maintenance arrangement with a community housing provider, and their maintenance response is fantastic, almost immediate — whereas if we are trying to get a response from Housing [NSW] it can take two or three weeks of negotiating and coordinating for someone to be there when they want to come around. It’s farcical, particularly with the contractors that Housing uses, or their sub-contractors. Their work is just slipshod. Their tradies have told us that for what they are getting paid it’s just not worth it doing anything more than a quick in-and-out process. Housing doesn’t mange the maintenance contracts very well. It seems like the community housing providers have more of a vested interest and manage their contracts better … We were asked to tender for the new maintenance contracts but the amount they were going to provide for maintenance was pretty dodgy and going to encourage shortcuts — because the margins were so small we didn’t put the tender in. I’m worried it’s going to lead to shoddy workmanship. Combined specialist homelessness service steward/community housing provider
We’ve had some work done by a couple of housing associations, and if they do the job cheaply they make money. So it’s at times worse than when the housing authority was doing the maintenance, because there wasn’t the mentality of saving money. They might have said, ‘Well, we don’t have the money in this financial year to do it’, but they didn’t try to cut corners. But because we’ve moved to private for-profit arrangements, that element is there now. So we get them saying, ‘Oh no, you can’t have that ’cause that’s too expensive’, or ‘We’ll only do half of this ’cause the other half’s alright’. Or they buy something that’s only going to last three years, so you’ve just got to pay for it again. That’s why the housing starts looking crap and why vandalism increases — it’s a false economy. Specialist homelessness service steward with a large portfolio of crisis and transitional CAP properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 32 3.2.4 Paying for maintenance of CAP properties The issue of who pays for maintenance of the CAP properties has been a point of conflict since the inception of CAP. It has always been tied up with the question of rent for the use of the properties — who charges it, from whom, for how much, and for what purposes the rent ought to be put legitimately. In particular, there has been a continuing perception that, ‘a lot of specialist services that had property whether it was formally through CAP/SAAP or other sources were using rental income to cross-subsidise their operating costs and the view was that it’s a housing asset and the money should be used for maintenance’.79
Background The 1989 CAP guidelines stated that CAP funds could be used for maintenance purposes, but in specific terms.
Major Works 33. Use of CAP funds for the maintenance/renovation of SAAP services, not a cost rent associated responsibility of the State Housing Authority, shall be restricted to major one-off works and must be consistent with the State Plan. 34. CAP funds are not to be used to fund normal ongoing maintenance/renovation costs of SAAP services as these should be borne by SAAP.
Minor Works 35. Funds for minor maintenance/renovation of SAAP services, not a cost rent associated responsibility of the State Housing Authority, shall be sought under SAAP.80
The cost rent principles for implementing this were laid down in the Housing Assistance Act 1989:
The Schedule — Cost Rent Principles Clause 26 The following principles are to be used to determine real cost rents for rental housing. The principles are not to be applied to the costs of individual dwellings but rather to the total cost pool of the rental stock. In allocating the total cost pool to individual tenancies, a State will have regard to variation in housing standards and locations within the constraints of available administrative arrangements for assessing these variations.
Recovery of operating expenses 1. The costs to be recovered in this respect are ordinarily listed in the rental accounts of State housing authorities as yearly expenditure items. These include:
(a) administration; (b) rates; (c) insurance; (d) specific operating expenses associated with particular types of units; (e) annual maintenance; (f) yearly allowance for rent arrears and debts written off; (g) yearly allowance for vacancies; (h) leasing expenses related to land and dwellings; (i) operating expenses of community facilities; and (j) any other operating costs agreed between the Minister and a State Minister.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 33 Interest charges 2. The costs to be recovered by the State include:
(a) interest payable by a State on loan funds invested by it in rental housing; and (b) a notional amount of interest on all Commonwealth and State grants invested in rental housing from and including 1989–90. That notional amount of interest is to be calculated at a rate taken as equivalent to the assessed secondary market yields published by the Reserve Bank of Australia in periodical Statistical Bulletins for the last business day of June preceding the commencement of the year in which the grants are paid into the Rental Capital Account.
Depreciation 3. An amount with respect to depreciation is to be included in costs to be recovered. To this end:
(a) the depreciation rate is to reflect a life of between 40–75 years of the capital improvements on the land; (b) the value of capital improvement will be based on the estimated current capital improved value; and (c) the minimum annual depreciation rate will be not less than the rate resulting from a term of 75 years.81
The 1989 guidelines do not use the current maintenance terminology of responsive and planned/cyclical, and there is no inventory to identify what it means by the terms ‘major’, ‘normal ongoing’ and ‘minor’. It is also not clear from the schedule what is covered by the term ‘annual maintenance’ as a part of justifiable cost rent to recover ‘operating expenses’.
However, the intent appears to have been that CAP funds were not to be used for what would now be called responsive maintenance. This was to come from SAAP funds, but the guidelines were silent about how. The 1994 CAP Mapping Project found that 51% of agencies with CAP properties who received SAAP funding said that they used some SAAP funding for maintenance.82 However, SAAP funding in New South Wales had never carried a separate line item for maintenance.83
Given the scope in the 1989 guidelines for a range of arrangements, it is not surprising that the 1999 national review of CAP found:
Responsibility for the funding of maintenance varies between States/Territories depending on the type of maintenance required and the approach to the payment of rent ... In (States where services were not required to pay rent) services are required to meet the costs of minor maintenance, which is generally defined as expenditure under $1000. The existing arrangements are confused, and maintenance costs are met by CAP and the SHAs (State Housing Authorities), SAAP and SAAP funded organisations depending on arrangements in the particular State. In those States where funded organisations are responsible for all maintenance, the extent of cross-subsidisation between programs is even less transparent than in States where maintenance is undertaken by the SHAs.84
The review recommended that, ‘CAP funds should not be used for maintenance purposes and that state housing authorities should be required to use rental or other income to meet maintenance costs in those cases where funded organisations are charged rent and funded
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 34 organisations should be responsible for maintenance costs where the SHAs do not charge rent’.85
The review recommended that rent charged in CAP accommodation should be equivalent to public housing rents. State housing authorities should subsidise the accommodation costs of providing housing assistance to homeless people. Users should also contribute to rents. Additional subsidies needed to support users who cannot contribute to rent costs should be subsidised by SAAP.86
Payment of rent by specialist homelessness services for CAP properties In New South Wales, specialist homelessness services have always paid a range of rents on CAP properties, under a range of leases developed ad hoc by Area/Regional offices of Housing NSW. Initially these payments were paid out of the grants made to the SHS organisation directly to Housing NSW. The practice that developed around the use of this rent was that it generally was used for what would now be called cyclical/planned maintenance, while the responsive maintenance was paid for from rents/board that specialist homelessness services collected from clients/residents. This was in keeping with the 1989 CAP guidelines as outlined above and is also in line with the recommendations of the 1999 national review of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program.
Cyclical maintenance and large-scale damage has been taken care of by the Department of Housing. About 2 and a half years ago we had a property that had some damage done, we presume by the tenant as they were moving out. It was probably a week’s worth of repairs. But DOH took so long that the property got broken into, all the copper piping got ripped out and it ended up over a year that that property was off-line. But since then they’ve been pretty speedy. Steward with seven CAP properties
Housing [NSW] is still doing the major maintenance. With the [community housing provider] registration process they were quite strict on maintenance, and we got very clear what we would be responsible for so at the end of the financial year. We go through the properties and see what needs to be done and if there is anything we know Housing won’t do, we will do that and refurbish the property. We used to have Resitech come in but now there are other companies who have been brought in, though how that’s administered I don’t know. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis CAP and three transitional CAP properties
In 1994, the Office of Community Housing and the then Department of Community Services entered into a Rent Agreement under which the Office of Community Housing was given a lump sum rent payment upfront deducted by Community Services from the SAAP component of the joint program. As at 2003, the Office of Community Housing received $2,017 on 645 units of accommodation for a total of $1.3 million per annum, or $39 per week per property. 87
One informant was highly critical of the Rent Agreement and of the repercussions for the specialist homelessness services as a result of the growing deficit in the Office of Community Housing’s CAP budget.
For all of the CAP ones we don’t pay rent: it comes out of our grant automatically. DOCS and Housing [NSW] did this dodgy thing way back when they had what was called the CAP Rental Policy. We used to pay rent directly to the Housing Department, it wasn’t very much but we paid it from the SAAP
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 35 grant, and they used to do our maintenance, and if they didn’t do our maintenance we used to withhold the rent and that’s what normal tenants do. But then Housing and DOCS decided they would take it out of our grant at the beginning, so we lost that money out of our grant and it went straight to Housing. Over time what Housing started saying was it’s not enough rent and kept asking DOCS to give them more money. DOCS couldn’t give them any more money because the SHS budget hadn’t grown anymore, and they couldn’t pay more rent to Housing because that would mean the service would have to be reduced. So Housing has bleated for a long time that they have been short-changed. I don’t see why they think we should pay for everything when they got the asset from the Commonwealth for free; yes, they have to maintain the asset, but they got the asset for free. What happens now is that if you have an old property and you want to get rid of it Housing will sell it for you and get you a new one, but they try to keep the rent from your grant that they were getting under CAP and then make you pay rent on the new property. Specialist homelessness service steward with a large portfolio of crisis and transitional CAP properties
In 2003, the Office of Community Housing noted that the Rent Agreement with the Department of Community Services had never been reviewed, that there was no procedure in place for removing or adding properties from the agreement, that the costs of maintaining the properties had risen over time and that these costs were being met from the CAP budget. The Office of Community Housing estimated that the deficit between its income from all CAP properties and its operating expenses (including repairs and maintenance, council and water rates and insurance but excluding major upgrading works) was $2.7 million.88
As at 2003, the Office of Community Housing was also receiving rent on other CAP properties:
. There were 115 ‘active rent accounts’ with an estimated revenue of $500,000 or an average of $84.00 per week collected from properties ‘generally managed by churches or charitable organisations’; . There were approximately 159 properties with nil rent. 89
It is not surprising given this complex historical accretion of rent practices that in its CAP Delivery Plan for 2000–01, the Office of Community Housing had committed to ‘identifying the property management costs incurred through CAP and develop a CAP rent policy’.90 In 2003, the Office of Community Housing stated that it had agreed with the Department of Community Services to review the Rental Agreement by September 2003.91 However, the 2006 Crisis Accommodation Program Guidelines do not make any reference to rent or maintenance arrangements.92
From interviews for the present research, the rental terms and payment between specialist homelessness services and the Office of Community Housing [now, the Community and Private Market Housing Directorate] continue to present as confused.
We pay Housing [NSW] a dollar each year. It’s very vague I have to say. They are the kind of arrangements you wonder if they are just going to come along and take them back one year. With the climate at the moment anything could happen. Specialist homelessness service provider with crisis and transitional CAP properties
One program was in [location delete] — we were offered a whole bunch of houses by the local office. There was a separate program in [location deleted] and a separate program in [location deleted]. All of them grew up independent of each other so we have a range of different contracts and a range of
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 36 different expectations and funding agreements. No CAP/SAAP expectations are the same. The [location deleted] one there’s 10 properties: we don’t pay rent on any of them. There’re nine properties in and around [location deleted] for which we pay rent on a per-room basis. Combined Specialist homelessness service/community housing provider agency
We’ve got on-going leases with the CAP properties. So the two newest properties, we pay rent of $40 a week on each property. But we don’t pay any rent on the others that we got under the old system. Specialist homelessness service managing seven transitional CAP properties
Don’t know what the leases were originally but they were just rolling over leases. On CAP properties for SHS services, DOCS has had some agreement on rent so we don’t pay any. But there shouldn’t be any rent. I think this is a furphy. The properties have been purchased out of CAP allocated funds, so who is the rent payable to? Specialist homelessness service steward of crisis and transitional housing CAP properties
We’ve head-leased the properties for [a] long, long time, but Housing [NSW] can’t find our leases, when we went to register as a community housing provider they had a lot of trouble — I mean, they know there are vacancies and that we have the properties, but they can’t find the actual leases. Specialist homelessness service managing seven CAP properties, four of which are crisis and three of which are medium term/transitional
How rents from clients/residents in specialist homelessness service CAP properties are used Now I still don’t know because I have never seen any documents on it how big that is as an issue — but I know that when I and others talk to people about that, the hands go up about how many people do it: use rental income to cross-subsidise their support service or administrative costs. In talking to people, the amount that is collected in rent doesn’t seem significant and it’s certainly marginal compared to market rent. I mean if say it was $10,000 a year they collect across, say, 300 properties, that’s $3 million in a $130 million dollar operating-base. It has obviously worried some people, because they have said that they use it to cross-subsidise their program costs. You could see that if there was a move to transfer that property management altogether to a Class 1 or Class 2 [community housing] provider who, by and large, are not SHSs themselves, or force people to quarantine the revenue they got on maintenance on the stock, then there is going to be a big issue about capacity to run your service. There is no policy about dollars not being used for maintenance, but I gather it’s been on and off the agenda for several years. Gary Moore.93
The Office of Community Housing’s CAP Strategic Directions 2000–03 stated that among the stewards, there were different approaches to client rent-charging, with rent most likely to be charged for medium-term accommodation to a percentage of income, whilst crisis accommodation is more likely to be charged as a flat rate.94 Consultations for the current research show that specialist homelessness services and community housing providers managing medium term/transitional accommodation typically charge tenants 25% of their income. There is more variation in what specialist homelessness services charge clients in crisis services, ranging from $10–$16 per night.
Rent collected has been used for a mix of responsive maintenance, furnishings and some program/support costs — but never on staff wages.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 37 Rent is collected at 25% of any income, plus a $10 service fee. Originally the $10 service fee was because we pay all the gas and electricity — but we are not allowed to call it that any longer because of legal ramifications. It’s basically a service fee for the support they are given. And then there is the 25% of income in rent set at the level of the Department of Housing. That does go into service support and also some maintenance, because of course we have to have the lawns mowed and any tenant damage repaired … But it does provide some of the support dollars as well, although that is a big bone of contention with Housing at this point. They are certainly giving us notice that that is going to be on the agenda for discussion and review. We’ve been getting that message from Area Department of Housing for years. Nothing’s been formally done, but we have got the message that that isn’t a system they want to see continued. They believe that whatever rent is collected should be going back into repairs and maintenance. And because of the type of clients that all of our services have, there is some reasonable repairs and maintenance at different times. I mean we’ve recently had one house that was significantly trashed, and six months before that one had a significant fire. So I can understand their position — but it will also make it very difficult for services like us, because we are just not adequately funded for the services we are expected to complete. The rent does top up our support dollars. Specialist homelessness service manager of seven transitional CAP properties
For the four youth refuges, there is a board payment not a rent payment — they pay board towards their food and not their accommodation. On the longer-term premises, there is a rent collected at the community housing rate. That money tends to go on maintenance because Housing [NSW] only does bigger maintenance, so we have to do our own. Specialist homelessness service manager of seven CAP properties, four refuges and three medium- term properties
We collect rent in both the refuge and the transitional houses, and we use the rental policy of community housing based on the tenants’ income. We use the rent for maintenance or when women get tenancies, we will often buy them some furniture or household goods. We just did our financial audit, and we only made $600 in our transitional houses last year. All of the money goes back into service delivery of some kind or client support. Specialist homelessness service manager of four CAP properties, one refuge and three transitional houses
We collect board from the residents in the CAP house of $16.50 per day. That’s like a top[-up] of funding. We are trying to make it user pays as much as we can, but of course that really doesn’t cover much. We are also trying to get them to understand how it is in the real world, what the cost of living is. Specialist homelessness service steward of one CAP crisis property
We have the purpose-built refuge in [location deleted] and we have nine community housing properties as an extension to our program with no government funding (just a lease arrangement with OCH). We collect rent for the day-to-day maintenance, while the big stuff gets done by Housing [NSW]. The SHS funding we have doesn’t 100% fund the staff that we need, to provide the service to the women in all these properties. There’s no way that the rental income pays for the rest of the service support, so the organisation has to find the rest of the money. Specialist homelessness service steward of a crisis CAP property
Tenants pay rent because the program needs the rent. If they are coming through as a SAAP client, it will be 25% of their income plus 100% of Commonwealth Rental Subsidy [CRA]. 95 If they are coming through as a youth, then we will probably put a management fee on top of that — because 25% of their income as rental and their Youth Allowance96 doesn’t mean they are actually paying enough rent to qualify for CRA. So we will artificially increase their rent so they qualify for CRA. So it works
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 38 out to be a $100 give or take a week. For people who are coming to us not through [Housing] Pathways but need affordable housing, non-supported tenants, we charge 75–80% of the market rent. Because we are a housing provider we are using the model that other community housing providers do, using affordable housing to fund their other work: we do that too. Combined specialist homelessness service/community housing provider agency
We only get a small amount of funding — $117,000 out of which we employ a Manager, a Senior Caseworker and a part-time Caseworker. We collect rent from the kids — 25% of income or thereabouts. We collect $13,000–$14,000 a year now from our CAP properties. That’s added to our $117,000 so that’s $140,000 all together: we have to run everything, buy new equipment like washing machines or fridges when they break down, furnishings for the houses, and pay for responsive maintenance. So if we lost those houses, that’s 10% of our funds gone ... So it’s really, really tight. Specialist homelessness service steward with crisis and transitional CAP properties
We base the rental we charge the support agency on the basis of bedroom size of the property and the tenant income. So for a youth service, it would be 25% of Youth Allowance and then if it’s a two- bedroom, that would be by two. Where an agency doesn’t charge the Commonwealth rental subsidy from the tenant we wouldn’t be charging them the full CRA also, whereas a tenant that has a lease arrangement directly with us would be charged 25% of their income plus 100% of the CRA … Previously we would receive a funding package for each property that we had from OCH, plus we would get a loading if we had a supported tenant in there. In line with the CRA being Commonwealth funding and that we could claim that, we would assess the tenants’ income including the CRA and then do a 25% of that. But now we do 25% of the income support plus 100% of the CRA so we’ve been able to increase our income — but then Housing cut all funding for capital properties, so we don’t receive any finding now for the capital properties, we only get funding for our leaseholds. We get about $1,500 a year for each leasehold. If we go to Raine and Horne and get a property for $400 and then let it for $1,000, we get our subsidy to cover that cap, and then we get the additional per $1,500 per leasehold. Community housing provider managing 22 CAP properties
Rent and CAP properties in the future We had a funding model [for maintenance] that was fundamentally flawed. Somewhere in the mists of time, certainly some decades ago, there was a negotiation between Housing [NSW] and the then DOCS, where the latter said we will pluck a number out of the air and give you an amount as rent out of the SAAP funding — which will be the equivalent of the maintenance cost as rent that you are entitled to. What happened with time is that the number of CAP properties changed totally, the assets aged and the initial amount had no relationship to the asset viability — which meant that basically the maintenance was unfunded. There have been real attempts to hammer that out and it’s never really got anywhere. So Housing not surprisingly said, ‘Well, if rent was collected that went to doing what rent is meant to do, that is, fund the cost of the asset, of course other operating costs but particularly the cost of the asset, then the problem goes away’. The approach to dealing with that was gradually to shift the funding for some of the new CAP properties to a community housing provider, who would then charge rent in the normal sort of way for transitional housing and medium-term. Adam Farrar.97
As of February 2013, Housing NSW has gone one step further. Specialist homelessness services managing properties leased from the Land and Housing Corporation will have to comply with the Community Housing Rent Policy. Under this policy:
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 39 . Providers must set a rent so that the tenant can meet other essential basic living costs. Providers can ask for a rental bond, but it must not be as unaffordable burden on the tenant. Providers can charge for water usage, except in crisis accommodation premises. . Transitional housing tenants who cannot afford market rent can apply for a rent subsidy for the difference between the rent paid by the tenant and the market rent. If a tenant is entitled to a rent subsidy, the proportion of income paid by the tenant as rent is determined by the types of income which are assessed for rent-charging purposes, and the percentage of each income type that is paid in rent. Pensions and allowances paid for income support are assessable. . Providers must determine the subsidised rent of all new tenancies based on a percentage of the assessable household income plus 100% of the household’s entitlement to Commonwealth Rent Assistance. This is subject to the qualification that the subsidised rent, including Commonwealth Rent Assistance, must not exceed market rent. 98
Also under the new leases, specialist homelessness services must separately account for rent collected from properties and the revenue is to be first used toward meeting the outgoings of the property for which providers are responsible.99
In early 2013, Housing NSW indicated to the three specialist homelessness service peak organisations in New South Wales, Yfoundations, the NSW Women’s Refuge Movement and Homelessness NSW, that, as part of its suite of reforms in the transitional-housing property- management area, it would be introducing new policies that:
. Enabled Commonwealth Rent Assistance for specialist homelessness service-managed transitional properties to be fully included in rent determination (commencing in January 2014); and . Required specialist homelessness services that continue to directly manage transitional properties to use collected rents only for asset maintenance (from June 2015).
Approximately 140 organisations managing specialist homelessness service transitional properties were notified of these changes in mid-April 2013. The reforms do not cover crisis accommodation. This part of the reform package comes following the outsourcing of specialist homelessness service-transitional property maintenance from Housing NSW contractors to approved Class 1and 2 community housing providers, and the issuing of revised leases (that run to 30 June 2014) to several specialist homelessness service-transitional housing providers earlier in 2013.
The three homelessness peak organisations are currently engaged in discussions with Housing NSW about the implementation of these further changes. There are significant impacts that require both a full understanding and potential mitigation. These latest set of changes are occurring within the same environment of and timeframes for the broader Going Home Staying Home reform agenda of the NSW Government for homelessness services.
3.2.5 Insurance on CAP properties The Land and Housing Corporation has building insurance on all the CAP properties it owns. The owners of properties that are leased from the private rental market have building insurance on all those properties.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 40 All specialist homelessness service stewards interviewed said they had contents and public liability insurance.
3.2.6 Tenancy management The 1995 national evaluation noted that at that time, tenancy management of CAP-funded properties was done by the SAAP funded organisations. The reasons for this were:
. CAP was a capital program and recurrent costs were not funded; . Tenancy management functions overlapped with support functions and a number of activities, such as dealing with unpaid rent, could be defined as both support and tenancy management; . CAP was seen as an accommodation funder and not an accommodation manager.
The consequences of this were:
. Considerable variation on tenancy management practice; . Discriminatory management practices that led to some homeless people not having access to services, for example, people exhibiting difficult behaviour; . Limited consistency between services, impacting on the quality of tenancy management individual service users received.100
The evaluation noted that SAAP funded tenancy management costs, particularly staff costs with no operational subsidies from the state housing authorities. However, the evaluation said, there was no structure or process for ensuring that tenancy management was being done in an appropriate and consistent manner. Tenancy management costs, the review said, should be met through whichever program held accountability for tenancy management. In line with its earlier questioning of the purpose of CAP, the evaluation argued that if the role of CAP was only to fund accommodation for a support service and the SAAP service had tenancy management responsibilities, then SAAP should meet the management costs. If the purpose of CAP was to fund housing assistance for homeless people, then the state housing authorities should be responsible for the tenancy management costs and tenancy management performance. The evaluation also noted that tenancy costs were likely to be higher in SAAP services, because of the high needs of service users and the greater time demands on staff to manage the tenancies.101
None of the bilateral agreements, CAP/SAAP State Plans, national evaluations of CAP or state evaluations of SAAP reviewed for the present research explicitly raise any concerns about tenancy management by specialist homelessness services. Concerns expressed and strategies proposed have focused solely on asset management as described earlier.
No evidence of concerns expressed by tenants of specialist homelessness services about protection of their rights has been documented in any of the evaluations and reviews. Nonetheless, concern for this has been a driver of changes to the tenancy management of specialist homelessness service transitional properties.
The first issue is around the need to separate housing and support to protect the interest of the tenants. I’ve never heard this concern coming from tenants of supported housing, but it’s been part of the policy discourse for as long as I can remember. It’s my impression that it did come from a
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 41 perception of practices that compromise people but I can’t cite any evidence. We’ve got a system which says that good practice, at least in transitional accommodation broadly speaking should be that normal tenancy rights and normal tenancy law should operate, embodying the principle that people who live in supported accommodation have rights to their housing, which are separate to their rights to support — and that their rights to housing should not be predicated on the way in which they engage with the support provider. I think that’s probably accepted by most providers. Certainly any time community housing providers have the management, it’s a given. I think for a lot of SHSs, it’s a given but I don’t know that it is for all. This is an absolutely current issue. The SHSs will be partly caught for some of their accommodation by the new boarding house legislation where there is the argument from support providers that they have to have tighter rules around access to housing that does undercut security of tenure. The obvious area is rules about, say, alcohol and all those things that set parameters that are not consistent with residential tenancy laws. Like most things there are two sides to the story, it’s not black and white — but it is driving public policy without even asking the question about what is really happening on the ground. Adam Farrar102
The present research asked specialist homelessness service stewards what leasing arrangements they had with clients in their crisis and transitional CAP properties. All those with transitional properties use the standard Residential Tenancy Agreement recommended by the NSW Fair Trading.103 Specialist homelessness services use a range of other agreements in their crisis properties.
We have residential tenancy agreements with all tenants as per the RTA [Residential Tenancies Act]. Leases are for a six week period and renewed periodically as applicable. The leases note an inventory list. Items are ticked on the inventory as applicable to the property but all properties have a washing machine, refrigerator, lounge setting, beds and television as well as supplied with the essential items to cook and clean — all kitchen electricals/utensils/cutlery/crockery as well as iron and vacuum cleaners are able to be taken with the tenant when they vacate. The lease agreements do not go into detail about lawn care/mowing for instance, which we provide as part of our supported service delivery. Specialist homelessness service steward with 12 transitional CAP properties
Our funding agreement with Community Housing Division stipulates that we use the Residential Tenancies Agreement in accordance with the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. We use the standard lease available on the Fair Trading website. Therefore we are bound by the terms of the Act and the agreement in every respect. We are a transitional housing program and offer accommodation of between 3 and 12 months. We sign leases with clients for 4 x 3-month periods (start and each quarter) and give a 90[-day] notice of termination to coincide with the 12-month anniversary date of the tenancy. We also charge a bond (which is deposited in the tenant’s name at the RBB [Rental Bond Board]). Rent is charges at 30%, which represents 25% of income [Housing NSW] and a 5% charge for provision of furniture, lawn mowing, etc. Specialist homelessness service steward combining SHS and community housing provision
We use standard RTA leases for young people in outreach properties, and for young people in residential services/accommodation, we use standard boarders and lodgers agreements. Specialist homelessness service steward with crisis and transitional CAP properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 42 We are a crisis service with often very short stays by clients, so we don’t have formal leases or agreements. We just have house rules or guidelines that we ask clients to stick to, and they are mainly about problematic behaviour like self-harming Specialist homelessness service with one crisis CAP property
We provide a standard tenancy lease that is registered and bonds lodged with Fair Trading. The lease has some guidelines that include participating in casework and that the lease is for 12 to 18 months. Specialist homelessness service steward with one crisis and a small number of transitional CAP properties
We use the standard lease with special conditions attached that prescribe the support agreement, and the responsibility of the client agreed too. Specialist homelessness service steward with transitional CAP properties
The overall picture is that the specialist homelessness services consulted do have agreements that provide protections for their tenants appropriate to the kind of housing service being provided to the tenant. These protections have been further enhanced through two recent developments.
The NSW Boarding Houses Act 2012 states that its object is ‘to establish an appropriate regulatory framework for the delivery of quality services to residents of registrable boarding houses, and for the promotion and protection of the wellbeing of such residents’. 104 The Act introduces a registration system for boarding houses — the definition of a ‘registrable boarding house’ includes a ‘general boarding house’, being premises that provide beds, for a fee or reward, for use by five or more residents (not counting any residents who are proprietors or managers of the premises or relatives of the proprietors or managers). 105
Where specialist homelessness services manage properties that fall within the Act’s definition of boarding houses, the Act will ensure protection for tenants (assuming that there is adequate monitoring of registered boarding houses from local government). Otherwise, premises used for crisis accommodation and refuges are excluded from the Boarding Houses Act.106
However, under the new leases to be issued by the Community and Private Market Housing Directorate, specialist homelessness services providing crisis and transitional services and registered as community housing providers will have to abide by the terms of the community housing access policy which specifies:
For crisis accommodation, community housing providers must have an agreement in place with each resident setting out the nature of the residency and the rights of the resident.
For transitional housing, community housing providers must have an agreement in place with each resident setting out the nature of the residency and the rights of the resident. This will generally take the form of a residential tenancy agreement. However, some forms of transitional housing (e.g. congregate housing with shared facilities) may not be suitable for a residential tenancy agreement and in these circumstances community housing providers must ensure another appropriate form of agreement is in place.107
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 43 3.2.7 Registration as community housing provider Initially the impact [of bringing in registration] was a lot of concern from SHSs. A proportion has taken up the opportunity to get out of [the property management] side of the business and therefore have chosen not to be registered. I haven’t heard SAAP providers say in fact because of the whole compliance issue they have been forced to move away from the property managing. Adam Farrar.108
Under the NSW Housing Amendment (Community Housing Providers) Act 2007, provision was made for the registration of community housing providers. Only organisations that are registered are able to be assisted by the Land and Housing Corporation (that is, receive funding, land, properties or enter into partnerships).109
There are four classes of registration:
1. Growth provider: typically, organisations managing a large portfolio of properties (400 or more) and undertaking community housing development projects utilising private sector funds and investment; 2. Housing provider: typically, organisations managing a large portfolio of properties (200 or more) and undertaking small-scale projects to develop community housing; 3. Housing manager: typically, organisations managing a small- to medium-sized portfolio of properties (30 or more) focused on property and tenancy management; 4. Small housing manager: typically, organisations managing a small portfolio of properties (one or more) focused on tenancy management. 110
Community housing providers are defined as:
… organisations (either non-government, local government or religious organisations) who receive assistance (in the form of leased capital properties, recurrent funding or capital funding grants) from Housing NSW to provide community housing. Community housing providers manage tenancy agreements for social and affordable housing under the Residential Tenancy Act 1987 and or management agreements covering boarders and lodgers for crisis accommodation.111
All but one of the specialist homelessness services interviewed for this research have registered as community housing providers, with the majority as Class 4 and one as a Class 3.
We are registered as a Class 4. We wanted to maintain ownership of our properties and decided it was better to go this way. Some of the refuges in our area have handed their properties back over the years and that worked for them. We thought we might be able to grow the number of properties that we have, and we didn’t want to exclude ourselves by not being registered. SHS steward of crisis and a small number of transitional CAP properties
We originally registered as a Class 2 because the person who did the registration got confused about what our property portfolio was going to look like. We got involved in building some properties, but we don’t manage them. We gave them to a community housing provider to manage. So now we are a Class 4. SHS steward with four crisis and three transitional CAP properties
Because we are now under the new system where we are [a] Class 4 registered housing association, we don’t have the ability to grow or take on any more properties. We registered because we had properties and we wanted to maintain them. You’ve always got to weigh it up. We manage our
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 44 properties but it’s time-consuming and difficult to do the housing — the maintenance and the tenancy management and such — but at the same time handing over those properties to someone else, well, why doesn’t the support just go there as well? But then what level of support will that be, because it will be run by a large community housing organisation more likely than not, and that’s not their area of expertise or even their desire really in terms of their bottom line outcomes? Specialist homelessness service steward of seven CAP transitional properties
We didn’t register. We’ve transferred the management of our properties to the local community housing group. There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing back then. It was very confusing when they first offered us those options [as to] what it actually meant: it was very difficult to get a clear answer. Specialist homelessness service with one crisis CAP property
As far as the researcher is aware, there is no specific policy not to allocate properties to Class 3 and Class 4 providers. The regulatory framework does allow for providers to change class through negotiation with the Registrar of Community Housing, though this would require additional performance information and supporting evidence.112 However, specialist homelessness services report that they understand that Class 4 and Class 3 providers are unlikely to be given additional properties to manage. This means that in effect they will not be able to grow, irrespective of how well they demonstrate their capacity for management — and so will also be unable to change class.
We registered as a community housing provider for one reason and one reason only; I was not prepared to turn over our headquarters, our main premise, to some other organisation and just be at their beck and call as a support worker. We had a few properties, so we registered. We thought when we registered that we would have the opportunity to gain more properties, however subsequently they decided no. Housing [NSW] only allocates properties to 3s and 4s. We’ve always been deemed to be poor stewards of our real estate they don’t trust ... they don’t want to deal with small organisations that don’t necessarily have a great track record, high levels of damage. If they have half a dozen large community housing providers, it makes it a whole lot easier for Housing. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and a small number of CAP properties
OCH [the Office of Community Housing, now the Community and Private Market Housing Directorate] is not supportive of smaller SHS services. They have prioritised only supporting level 1 and 2 associations. They are saying that unless you are a level 1 or 2 you are not going to be given any more properties — which means you can never become 1 or 2, which is where we are now. My view is that you should never use the registration tool as a way to control the sector. The sector should be able to grow as normal. If you are an agency that puts in a tender, and you are good, you should be able to get a property and eventually you should be able to change your registration status if that’s what you want to do. I think Housing NSW, the OCH, is using the registration system to control the sector so they only have to deal with a few large providers. But we should have a mix of providers and services as long as they are doing a good job. I think there are some small agencies that don’t want to manage their properties but that shouldn’t have to go to housing associations. Someone like us could take on those properties. We are a Level 3. We are a bit unusual because we are quite big. We are nowhere near a 4. We sit at the top end of 3 but it would take us a bit to get to a 2. The guidelines give a benchmark for the number of properties but the guideline also say that if you are complex in nature and doing development, which we are, then you can be classified as a 2, which we are doing. Specialist homelessness service steward with a large crisis and transitional CAP property portfolio, as well as other leasehold properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 45 Class 4 community housing providers have been excluded from the transfer of properties from Housing NSW and are not eligible to tender for an increase in housing stock. This situation needs to change as small, rural and regional NGOs are usually the only services available to clients — and bigger is not always better in the allocation of housing to disadvantaged and vulnerable clients. Specialist homelessness service and community housing provider steward
There is zero interest in allocating any more properties to Class 3 and Class 4. Gary Moore.113
In 2006, the Youth Accommodation Association (YAA, the peak body for youth specialist homelessness services in New South Wales, now called YFoundations) responded to a paper from the NSW Federation of Housing Association discussing strategies to strengthen the management of supported accommodation. In relation to CAP, YAA said:
. There is a perception that the original intention of CAP as the property/capital arm of SAAP is being gradually eroded. . SAAP-funded organisations ‘are being reluctantly obligated or pressured to partner up with community housing providers ... There is a perception and concern amongst SAAP funded organisations of ‘no partner’ = ‘no property’. . There are concerns that the direction of the Office of Community Housing is to award CAP properties to community housing providers in preference to SAAP service, as the latter are seen to ‘not be effective property managers’. This is an ‘unsubstantiated narrative’. ‘Currently there are a range of capacities within organisations for effective property management and tenancy management. Many services are capable of this work and see it as an important and integrated element of their service provision, while some services would prefer to ‘outsource’ this function to a community housing partner.’ 114
As of 2013, specialist homelessness services who are community housing providers will come under a new National Regulatory System for Community Housing Providers.115 This will be a system for registration, monitoring and regulation of community housing providers, which includes social and affordable housing, agreed to by Commonwealth and state housing ministers. New South Wales is the host state for the initial roll-out of the system. On 22 August 2012, the NSW Parliament passed the Community Housing Providers (Adoption of National Law) Bill 2012, which provides uniform template legislation for the system.
While there will be no obligation for housing providers to be registered under the national system, it is left up to individual government policy and funding agencies to decide whether to make registration a precondition for receiving funding or investment, and for delivering funded housing services. There will only be three tiers and small organisations that manage fewer than 50 properties within a single state or territory may be nationally registered as Tier 3 housing providers on an opt-in basis.116
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 46 4. The use of CAP properties
This section focuses on what use is being made of the CAP properties and whether it has changed from its original purpose — as part of examining the ‘state of play’ of the dwellings.
The questions asked of interviewees to answer these questions were:
. Who is accommodated in the properties? Has the target group changed over time? . What length of stay were the properties intended to provide when first allocated by Housing NSW? What length of stay do they provide now? If there has been a change, what has led to the change?
4.1 Who is accommodated in CAP properties?
4.1.1 Demographic characteristics Since its inception, the SAAP/CAP program has focussed on three main target groups that reflect the birth of the program from pre-existing programs as outlined in section 1 of this report:
. Young people aged 16–18 years with some services extending the age range to 25 years; . Women and children escaping domestic violence; and . Single homeless adults.
In later years, families experiencing homelessness became a main target group as well.
All the specialist homelessness services interviewed for this research were established to accommodate one or other or a mix of these target groups, and they continue to do so. The specialist homelessness service data reports for NSW 2009–10 and 2010–2011 summary user profiles support this:
. The majority of clients were female: 58% in 2009–10 and 56% in 2010–11; . The average (mean) age of clients in New South Wales was 32 years in 2009–10, but had dropped considerably to 24 years in 2010–11; . The highest rate of use of services was by 15–19 year-olds — an equivalent of one in 48 people in both years (this was particularly true for females); . In 2009–12, children also had a high rate of use, with one in every 83 children aged 0–17 years and one in every 52 children aged 0–4 years in New South Wales accompanying a client (no figure was given for 2010–11).117
Separate user profiles for NSW for 2011–12 were not available at the time of this research. NSW profiles have in past year been closely aligned with the national profiles, and it can be assumed that they would have been aligned also in 2011–12. The national profile showed:
Females represented 59% and males 41% of people accessing support from homelessness agencies. Women aged 18–34 were the group most likely to access specialist homelessness services, accounting for 59% of female clients and 37% of all clients.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 47 . Children and young people were overrepresented among those who received support from homeless agencies, compared with their proportion of the Australian population. Children aged 0–17 represented 29% of clients receiving support, but represent 23% of the general population. Children under 10 accounted for 17% of all clients despite representing only 13% of the general population. . Young people aged 18–24 had the highest rate of use for any age group, with an equivalent of 1 in 56 Australians accessing specialist homelessness services. When further broken down by sex, young women aged 18–24 had the highest rate of use of all age/sex groups, with one in 42 young Australian women accessing specialist homelessness services in 2011‒12.118
The figures for young people have particular relevance to later findings of this research.
4.1.2 Changing client needs The demographic profile on gender and age may have not changed significantly since SAAP/CAP began, but the needs that clients bring into the specialist homelessness service have, and that is changing length of stays.
The NSW SAAP/CAP Strategic Plan 1997–99 identified a number of national developments that would influence SAAP performance in the coming year. One of these was reforms in mental health, including the development of mental health service provision and public and community health strategies.119 The 1999–2003 bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and New South Wales stated:
Demographic and other changes have contributed to an increase in demand for housing assistance from people with more complex needs and this demand is expected to continue. ...Many people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness also experience complex and/or multiple needs related to such factors as family breakdown, mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse and domestic violence (and they) require a specialised housing assistance response. This includes higher levels of client service and a wider range of housing options to meet individual need and to provide appropriate support for communities to avoid compounding social problems.120
The Office of Community Housing CAP Strategic Directions document identifies services the increasing complexity of need among many homeless people as a recent trend in the use of SAAP and CAP. The Delivery Plan committed the Office of Community Housing to providing 17 new accommodation units linked to support services for people with complex needs (which it defined as people with a mental illness, people with a disability, and people with drug and alcohol problems).121
Table 8 shows these changes as they are reflected in the main reason clients are identified as seeking support from specialist homelessness services.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 48
Table 8. Main reason for seeking support122
1999– 2000–01 2001– 2002– 2003– 2004– 2005– 2006– 2007– 2008– 2009– 2010– 00 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 Financial difficulties 12% No 11% 12% 10% 9% 11% 10% 9% 11% 14% 19% Relationship breakdown 21% report 18% 19% 16% 24% 21% 20% 25% 24% 25% 22% available Fleeing domestic, family and sexual 22% 21% 20% 20% 20% 23% 24% 29% 21% 19% 19% violence and abuse Accommodation issues 18% 21% 21% 19% 20% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% Drug and alcohol issues 10% 9% 9% 8% 14% 15% 14% 12% 12% 9% 7% Mental health issues 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 2% 2% Leaving institutional settings 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% Inc. in Inc. in Inc. in Inc. in Inc. in other other other other other Other 13% 16% 15% 27% 8% 9% 13% 13% 13% 14% 15%
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 49 Tale 8 shows:
. The percentage of clients for whom the main reason was accommodation issues has dropped from a high of 21% in 2001–02 and 2002–03 to a steady 15% since 2005–06. . There was a sizeable increase in those for whom the main reason was drug and alcohol issues in the years 2004–05 (14 %), 2005–06 (15%) and 2007–07 (14%), but levels have dropped back to a low of 7% in 2010–11 (lower than any year since 1999–2000). . The percentage of those with mental health issues as their main reason for seeking support has not varied as much, between 2–4%, again with a fall back to earlier levels by 2010–11. . The percentage of those leaving institutional settings remained steady at 2% between 1999 and 2006. It is unfortunate that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data summaries did not disaggregate these clients from the ‘Other’ category. The NSW Homelessness Action Plan commits specifically to the priority of transitioning people exiting statutory care/correctional and health facilities into and maintaining them in appropriate long-term accommodation; it would be useful to be able to report on whether specialist homelessness services are engaging with and accommodating these individuals.123
All the specialist homelessness service and community housing provider interviewees for the present research said they were increasingly accommodating people with complex issues. They said that this placed severe strains on the support they provided to those clients and also, importantly, on the other clients they continue to accommodate.
Prior to [the last couple of years], clients were homeless due to abuse and neglect. Now they are a mix of abused/neglected/homeless/disability and clients deemed by their families as disposable. Rural crisis specialist homelessness service steward
One of the things we are finding in our semi-independent houses is that we are having to accommodate kids with higher and higher levels of need. Of the 15 kids we have at the moment, we have five who cycle through the psychiatric unit at Prince of Wales hospital; basically once a month they are in there. These are high-needs kids. Some of those kids, yeah, they are going to do all right in the long run — but some of them are going to be life-long public tenants. I think we should be able to transition some of those kids now who are never going to be able to live independently to get them into some kind of community housing and set them up legitimately. Specialist homelessness service steward with crisis and transitional CAP properties
The level of complexity of need has changed. Years ago you had a few tough nuts, but generally it was homelessness issues and that was the predominant reason for them seeking assistance. And while they are still seeking assistance because they are homeless, there’s a range of other issues as well: behavioural issues, mental health issues, drug and alcohol issues, issues with juvenile justice and police involving violence that are quite difficult to manage in a shared house environment. Specialist homelessness service steward with transitional CAP properties
Our target group has remained the same but we are increasingly seeing people with mental illness, drug and alcohol issues, African refugees with post-traumatic stress disorder. Specialist homelessness service steward with transitional CAP properties.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 50 4.2 Lengths of stay in CAP properties So, the target group for the services has not changed, but the needs are becoming more complex. Are there also changes in how long people are staying in SHS?
Table 9 shows:
. The proportion of clients staying less than one week has dropped dramatically from 57% in 2000–01 to 34% in 2010–11; . An increase in the proportion of clients staying for 1–3 months from 13% in 2000–01 to 23% in 2010–11; . A more than doubling of the proportion staying 3–6 months from 4% in 2000–01 to 10% in 2010–11; . A tripling of the proportion staying more than 6 months from 4% in 2000–01 to 12% in 2010–11.
This trend was noted by all specialist homelessness service stewards interviewed for this research. They agree that one factor is that complex needs clients take longer to skill up to be ‘home ready’ before transitioning them into long-term housing.
The other factor they point to is the lack of exit points into community, social and private long- term housing.
The target group is women and children escaping domestic violence. In the transitional houses in the early days the length of stay was 3–6 months, but now it’s is 6–12 months. The shift happened mainly because of where we are situated on the North Coast. We are definitely seeing more access to our services from single and older women — and their options for private rental are non-existent unless they want to share and we don’t [have] much share accommodation available because uni students take it up. Also, the road companies came in to work on the highway and now head-lease properties for their workers. We’ve also had a large number of African refugees come into the area and that has taken up a lot of the lower end of the private rental market — because church groups who are sponsoring them tend to get better entry into the market. Also the cost of housing has gone through the roof, so rental properties we used to get for $90 are now $180. You couple the limitations in the housing market with all the discrimination — you are coming from the refuge so you must be a high risk tenant — and that has an impact on our women. Around 35% of our clients are Aboriginal this year [2012], and for them facing that additional barrier is very difficult. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and transitional CAP properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 51
Table 9. Length of time accommodation was provided for in specialist homelessness service services in NSW (% of clients)124
2001–02 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05 2005–06 2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 1 day – 1 week 57% 60% 51% 46% 47% 44% 41% 37% 35% 34% > 1 week – 22% 20% 23% 24% 24% 25% 22% 22% 22% 21% 1 month > 1–3 months 13% 12% 15% 18% 17% 19% 22% 23% 23% 23% > 3–6 months 4% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 8% 9% 9% 10% > 6 months 4% 4% 6% 7% 6% 6% 7% 9% 11% 12%
Note: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported on this data using a range of categories for length of time accommodation as provided, so they have all been standardised to those used in 2010–2011.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 52 These changes are reflected in the type of housing support required by clients of specialist homelessness services. Table 10 shows a decreasing proportion of clients requiring specialist homelessness service accommodation matched by an increasing proportion of clients needing assistance to obtain and maintain independent accommodation between 2006 and 2011.
Table 10. Type of housing support required by clients, by reporting period, 2006–07 to 2010–11 (per cent)125
2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10 2010–11 SHS accommodation 55% 47% 47% 40% 40% Clients seeking 72% 66% 72% 66% 64% housing/accommodation Assistance to 16% 15% 19% 20% 17% obtain/maintain short- term accommodation Assistance to 11% 11% 14% 14% 15% obtain/maintain medium- term accommodation Assistance to 24% 25% 33% 31% 33% obtain/maintain independent housing
The issue of exit points is explored in the next section which looks at the future role for CAP properties in the homelessness response continuum.
4.3 Specialist homelessness service and community housing provider CAP partnerships The 1994–97 SAAP/CAP State Plan said that there was ‘an increasing need to address the long- term needs of clients currently housed in SAAP/CAP properties’.126 It went on to say that, ‘In relation to access to public housing, consideration needs to be given to the development of models which allow clients to successfully move from supported accommodation to long term independent living. This will require flexible models of support to be developed and close liaison to be maintained with the Department of Housing and the community housing sector.’127
In 1997–98, the Office of Community Housing and the Department of Community Services jointly established the CAP/SAAP Innovation Initiative (CAP II). Under this, CAP properties were used to house clients leaving Supported Accommodation Assistance Program services through partnerships between specialist homelessness services as case managers and community housing providers as tenancy and property managers. Twenty one projects were funded, providing 53 accommodation units. When the agreed support period ended, the client remained in the property under a lease with the community housing provider. The housing providers were responsible for finding a replacement property.128
CAP II no longer exists as a separate program, but it established the model for partnerships between specialist homelessness services and community housing providers. These
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 53 partnerships are an essential element of the Going Home Staying Reform Plan129, discussed in the next section of this report, so it is worth learning lessons from the review of the program and its aftermath.
A mid-term review of CAP II was carried out in 2000. The review found:
. The majority of support providers were funded for 30 hours of support from 3–6 months for each client — almost two thirds of support providers said 30 hours was adequate; . Of 69 clients, 44% were still in their support period, 41% had completed their support period, and 12% left before the period was completed.130
The key characteristics considered indicative of client’s suitability for CAP II by responders were:
. Skills in financial management and/previous history in rent payments; . Independent living skills or a willingness to learn; . Ability to advocate for themselves; . Low and short-term support needs; . Knowledge of tenant responsibilities; . Willingness to seek help when difficulties arose.131
Table 11. Percentage of capital and leasehold properties used in CAP II132
% % capital % leasehold Original quota 90 10 Properties currently occupied 68 32 Properties replaced 56 44
The review noted from this that CAP was used initially, but there was a growing trend to use leaseholds when replacing properties.
YAA made a number of criticisms of the program:
. The need for increased housing exit points could not be ‘remedied by short term, one off funded programs such as CAP II. . YAA members disagreed that 2.5 hours of support per week per client would be adequate. ‘In some cases this may be true but it is far more likely that young people have peaks and troughs in their support needs and this does not usually fit into some preconceived notion that over six months everything will go smoothly and no additional support will be required.’ . The support-hours formula did not take into consideration staff hours required to manage projects such as this. . There appeared to be no funding for administrative costs to the SAAP service. . The way the program was structured ‘forces the agency to only rely on casual labour’. . There were no funds for establishment costs to furnish and equip accommodation for clients.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 54 . There did not appear to be ‘a guarantee that housing associations will be assisted to ensure stock replacement’. . It was ‘a net capital loss of stock to CAP for the ongoing use of clients who require housing and support ... SAAP must have a capital arm to it and therefore we do not support the use of CAP dollars going into general housing stock and being lost.’ . The impact of tenancy law on case management had not been thoroughly investigated. ‘There is a possibility of a young person on a tenancy agreement with a housing association refusing to participate in the case management process and refusing to allow the support worker to visit or contact them’. . SAAP works would be deskilled in areas of housing management by the separation of housing and support.133
In 2001, the NSW Federation of Housing Associations (FHA) undertook a survey of housing and support agreements then current in the community housing sector. Thirty five of the 45 housing associations responded that they had support agreements with a range of service providers. Of these 35 respondents, 63% said they had agreements with clients of SAAP services.134
Forty four per cent said they strongly agreed that having these support agreements made a significant difference to the tenancies, and 42% said they agree with this statement.
When asked whether they would start tenancies for tenants with support needs without a support agreement:
. 18% said, ‘Yes’; . 12% said that as a housing provider their decision was contingent on the tenant; . 70% said, ‘No’.135
Reasons for saying ‘No’ included damage to properties, non-payment of rent, lacking expertise to provide support, and the needs of the tenant for on-going support.
In 2006 the NSW Federation of Housing Associations wrote a discussion paper on housing and support. 136 The context for the paper was described this way: ‘The general model of linking housing and support is unlikely to be abandoned by either government, non-government or community agencies ... Crucially we have to recognise that increasingly the non-government sector is providing and expected to provide housing and support that may have previously been provided by the government. One of the risks for our sector is that they can be exploited in providing these services as a trade-off to increasing stock and opportunities’.137
Major issues identified were:
. Funding to housing associations and support providers to address outreach and support coasts and the increased time and costs of tenancy management; . Maintaining affordable community housing for a broad range of tenants so that not all new housing stock is aimed at supported tenancies; . Training for support agencies in tenancy management issues; . Training for housing providers in some of the basic issues of clients with support needs, for example, mental health, and drugs and alcohol issues; . Methods of resolving tension between tenants, housing providers and support agencies if tenants/clients choose not to accept support;
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 55 . Methods of addressing the support needs of tenants without support agreements; . Increased secure and affordable housing exit points for clients from supported housing and supported housing clients in community housing.138
Interviewees for the present research reported different experiences of their current partnerships in CAP and non-CAP accommodation.
We do have an MOU with a community housing provider for two medium-term properties. They take out the head-leases and then we do the case management of the clients that go there. We do all the assessment of the potential tenant and the follow-up case management, but they do all the property management. We are funded for three-month support for the young person, but we are seeing kids now with more complex needs — there’s heaps of mental health issues, more complex drug and alcohol issues. There’s not lot of exit points so they tend to stay longer. In the two properties we have under the MOU, we could keep the client for two years’ stay — but they are having the same problem because they can’t find the properties to take the head-lease on the private market. That’s one of the reasons we still have a young fellow here after 8 months. We can’t find a suitable property. Specialist homelessness service steward with one crisis CAP property
There was a meeting in 2012 with community housing providers and SHS. The community housing providers were saying we want to embrace you we want to develop partnerships, and all the SHS were saying that’s great. Then we had our first meeting with [a community housing provider] a couple of weeks ago, and it’s just so bloody hard. They’ve got nothing to offer us. But then I see all these other odd arrangements around. For example, [a community housing provider], they have young pregnant women they move in, they have their babies, they set them up in a house and give them their 12- months’ supervisions and support, then she gets to keep the house and they get a new house allocated. Then they say to us, with our three flats, that’s the only allocation you’ve got and it’s up to us to move them on. Where do we move them on to? The private rental market? We do move them on to all kinds of other situations, not all of them useful. Dealing with [the community housing provider] is a bit like dealing with the Department of Housing. Previously [their former community housing provider CAP manager] was a local agency, we knew the workers. I think [a community housing provider] is a good organisation, doing their thing. But the problem for me is that their role is not as sympathetic to us as [the former community housing provider]. CAP is a very small program for them. As soon as the Housing Manager at [the community housing provider] sees that there is an arrears they should contact us that day, but they don’t. They treat them like general housing tenants — and that’s not helpful because our kids aren’t general housing tenants. Specialist homelessness service steward with one crisis and a small number of CAP properties managed by a community housing provider
We have supported housing, we have general social housing and then we have affordable housing. We have about 500 tenancies under supported housing where there is a formal arrangement with the support agency that underlines the responsibilities and roles. So the CAP properties are a small proportion of the portfolio. If the support service is exiting, [this] is saying this person has reached a level of stability and independence, and there is no need for us now to continue our support — of course, we expect they will go and give their support where it’s needed to others banging on their door. However, if and when the wheels fall off for this tenant, we have an agreement with the support agency that they will come back in for this tenant, if their tenancy is at risk. Community housing provider with CAP properties supported by a specialist homelessness service
But the support landscape is changing as the above-cited community housing provider reported.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 56 With support arrangements outside of CAP, with different agencies and target groups, we have had a similar kind of transitional housing which we are phasing out now. The properties we have with Housing NSW are for long-term social housing and with the [Housing] Pathways waiting list being as long as it is ... management made a call that the transitional outside of CAP and another transitional program we’ve managed since 2006 will be phased out. In general what we have found, and every community provider will find it’s the same, is that previously our target group was people on low income, but now our target group is people on low income with complex needs. We are just going through a restructure where we have had a supported housing team which managed all the supported housing tenants but we are realising that anyone who has been housed in the last two years and in the future will by default have support needs — so we are saying that that skill and expertise is needed throughout the whole organisation. So we have disbanded the support housing team and we have set up new roles called Tenancy Specialists that will work with the Tenancy Managers around complex needs. When there’s a support agency involved great, well and good — but there’s a lot of people that don’t have support agencies involved, and then with the population ageing, there are going to be more and more people that will need to be linked in with support agencies. So we are having to now work more with tenants who don’t have the formal links to support, and having to try and establish them to make sure that the tenancy is maintained and sustained. Community housing provider with CAP properties supported by a specialist homelessness service
4.4 Specialist homelessness service offices in CAP properties Having specialist homelessness services operating out of CAP properties has come under scrutiny in recent times.
The 1994 CAP Mapping Project found that 59% had an administration area/office located in the accommodation unit. The definition of accommodation unit included refuges, as well as boarding houses and hostels which would be expected to have an office for a manager or rostered support staff on the premises.139
Interviewees for this research were asked whether they operated an office from their specialist homelessness service accommodation.
Each service must have an office to supervise the young people, provide case management and support, etc. etc. Sites are naturally managed best with staff support on site where possible. Our crisis refuge is not perhaps a clear example, as at our own expense we have extended the building at both ends, and upstairs to increase office capacity. But this was not at the expense of reduced bed capacity. That has never changed. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and several transitional CAP properties
We have overnight staff on the premises. We have one small room which is our office for the shift staff, and is also the office for the coordinator throughout the day (we only have the one property, no off- site office space). Specialist homelessness service steward with one transitional CAP property
We have an office that is a converted shed at the rear of the property from which the CEO, case workers, and transitional staff operate. No accommodation space in the CAP premise is used. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and a small number of transitional CAP properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 57 We have 11 CAP properties with leases from H[ousing] NSW and seven leasehold subsidies from the Community Housing Division. All of these properties are used for clients. We separately rent our office from a private landlord — using operational funding from FACS (Community Services) to pay monthly commercial rent. The Community Housing division will not approve the use of one of the properties as an office. We do not provide on-site support — all tenants live independently. Specialist homelessness service steward and community housing provider
We use our transitional properties for tenancy for clients only. Our Resource Centre is rented in the private market. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and transitional CAP properties
On the strength of these responses it does not appear that accommodation space is being used for office space by CAP stewards except where the service is a crisis or other service with on- site staff. Where then does the concern arise? It arises over a small number of CAP properties such as this one.
We have three CAP properties, one of which we operate out of. We are a brokerage model and so we have young people coming in. There’s been rumours that properties that haven’t been used for accommodation will be taken back. That’s concerning for us. We’ve operated out of there for the last 20 years. Young people know where to find us. We’re in the centre of town. They can come and see us without being ashamed. There is no signage. About 60% of our young people are Aboriginal and that’s a factor in how we have to present and where. Specialist homelessness service steward with three CAP properties
I’m told there are seven CAP properties that have no housing use in them. For example, [name deleted] was given a property 30 years ago and they don’t use it for any accommodation, but they use it for their counselling and their groups and everything else, so that’s a classic example. So the pressure is being put on them. Maybe in that set of circumstances, there is a case for saying that stock should be used for housing — but given that nobody has dealt with this for a number of years, why are we worrying about 7 out of 1,500 cases? But if you have to worry about it, we need a simple package that deals with transition for each of these. It’s manageable. Gary Moore140
However, at least one office of Housing NSW appears to be operating on some other assumption about what the concern is.
I was working in our CAP property recently and the OCH did come in and check the percentage of office space to young people being accommodated: they said that there needed to be a ratio, something like 75% or more accommodation space. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis CAP property
No policy about a ratio of office space to accommodation space has been pointed to by any of the interviewees for this research, nor have any guidelines or State CAP/SAAP Plans reviewed for the research.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 58 5. The place of CAP properties in the future homelessness response continuum
This section explores how the stewards see the role of the CAP properties as part of the homelessness response continuum, especially the specialist homelessness services who are nearly two-thirds (64%) of the head-tenants of the dwellings.
The questions asked of interviewees to address this issue were:
. Where do these properties fit into the spectrum of homelessness provision by the non- government organisation? That is, what is the nature of their current use? . Is the non-government organisation re-orienting its homelessness service practice? If yes, in what way? . Where will the CAP properties fit within the new homelessness sector structure which is currently being developed? . What would be the impact on the service if the CAP properties were resumed by the Land and Housing Corporation for long-term social/affordable housing? . Are there any external factors that have an impact on how the CAP properties are utilised that need to be addressed in order to make better use of the properties?
5.1 Going Home Staying Home On 10 July 2012, the NSW Minister for Family and Community Services launched the program for reforming the specialist homelessness service sector, Going Home Staying Home, and on 8 February 2013, the Going Home Staying Home Reform Plan was released.141
A revised Service Delivery Framework has been developed to guide the reform program which is expected to be operational in June 2014. The framework outlines four core service responses:
. Prevention and early intervention; . Rapid re-housing; . Crisis and transition responses; . Intensive responses for complex-needs clients.142
The plan states that the effectiveness of these four service responses is critically dependent on a streamlined access system that better connects clients with the most appropriate specialist homelessness service and general services, and on linking clients to housing and other services and helping them to build and maintain connections with family and community.143
Five reform strategies have been identified in the reform plan:
1. Service delivery design: ensuring the right service design; 2. Streamlined access for clients: helping clients access the services they need; 3. Better planning and resource allocation: locating services where they are needed most; 4. Industry and workforce development: enabling organisations and staff to deliver the reforms;
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 59 5. Quality, contracting and continuous improvement: ensuring ongoing improvement in quality and outcomes.144
The responses and reform strategies are similar to those discussed and committed to in SAAP/CAP State Plans reviewed for this research.145 They are also aligned with strategies and actions detailed in the NSW Homelessness Action Plan. 146 Specific programs identified as successful models on which to build also have become accepted practice in the homelessness sector, for example, ‘housing first’, rapid rehousing, partnerships around supporting complex- needs clients, and links between crisis and transitional services and non-housing support services and programs such as education, health and employment.
New to the plan is the setting aside of Commonwealth National Partnership on Homelessness funds for an Innovation Fund to help services transition to revised designs.147
The reform plan makes no mention at all of the CAP properties or their use in the proposed four responses.
This report now turns to a discussion of how CAP stewards see the properties within the homelessness response continuum to address this issue and the external barriers to their effective use in this way.
5.2 CAP properties in the homelessness response continuum The 1999 Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth and NSW said: ‘The Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP) is an integral part of the overall response to homelessness in NSW’.148 This remains the view of the interviewees for this research.
This is emphasised most by specialist homelessness services and community housing providers providing accommodation to young people.
Our service is very flexible in working with young people. We do an assessment and that may mean that we will put a client into the refuge for a couple of weeks to see how they are progressing — and then if that goes well, move then into our CAP properties and then if that goes well, move them into our transitional properties. Or we might have a client who is coming out of a transitional property because they haven’t coped and we would put them into a CAP property to assess them. A client coming out of quite severe crisis into a tenancy in our experience doesn’t have the skills base to sustain it, particularly the youngsters of 16 and 17 years. You need the CAP properties to help them develop those skills and the knowledge, and what it means to rent. All of our clients do an education program about renting. Specialist homelessness service steward with crisis and transitional CAP properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 60 I see that we really need to have a continuum, a range of options that meet people’s needs, particularly for young people. You have an 18-year-old that’s in crisis and has a range of complex needs. At 24 they are more able to handle that and their housing needs. I like CAP for young people, because it is able to hold those young people and transition them through those difficult times, and then if the support is working and they’re in a position, they can be helped to meet their own housing needs. One thing we have found is that there needs to be very close working between the support agency and ourselves to catch the ones we need to catch, and then transition them successfully into long-term housing — rather than them being in a cocooned supported accommodation, and then going into homelessness which some people do. Community housing provider managing CAP properties with specialist homelessness service support
‘Housing first’ works for some of the kids who are ready for independent housing. Now I’m sure that those in their ivory towers up in Community Services think that by the time a kid moves into independent housing, they should have all those skills — they should be able to cook, put the garbage bin out, pay the rent and all of that. I come from a very simple position. We have young kids come to us who need to grow up, and we grow them up, we nurture them. But one of the things that’s happened over the years is that medium-term accommodation has disappeared, and so a 15- or 16- year-old or even a 17-year-old who doesn’t have the wherewithal to take on the responsibility of living in a flat or a house, where are they meant to live? They can’t take up crisis beds and it’s not healthy for them anyway to stay in crisis. Typically, we are finding that our kids are staying longer than we ought to keep them. The out-of-home care system recognises that there are kids with lots of deficits who aren’t going to get their act together, so they are accommodated in foster care or residential care till they are 18 and way, way beyond that. Our kids are every bit as in need as those out-of-home care kids. It’s just that the out-of-home care kids are lucky enough to go through the court system and be put into the care of the minister. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and several transitional CAP properties
Two of our medium-term properties have got staff on-site. The young people can live there a bit longer. They can live there until they finish school, or until they can pay rent or they can get onto the public housing list, so there’s no strong time frame. They are for young people who came through the crisis service, can’t return home — but are way too little to end up in the private rental or public housing market, and they need more time. Then there are some CAP properties that are single- bedroom units where young people can have a longer-term stay and we can link them into education, training and employment. Our CAP properties are very useful for those kinds of purposes. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and a large portfolio of transitional CAP properties
Women and their children escaping domestic violence benefit from being in the transitional CAP properties also.
One of the benefits of the transitional properties is for women who don’t have a rental reference or a good rental history they are able to show from the time they stay with us and our rent letters and their bank account that they are able to sustain a tenancy. The rent they are paying us isn’t that much cheaper than what they will end up paying, so they can also show that they are able to pay for what they are going to be up for. Specialist homelessness service steward with crisis and a small number of transitional CAP properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 61 CAP is also suitable for women escaping domestic violence. It’s the exits that are not there. I think a lot of the SHS will tell you they have people staying longer, because where do they go? Community housing provider managing CAP properties with specialist homelessness service support
The issue of exit points is discussed later in this report.
5.3 Exit points from CAP Originally we were allocated our CAP properties for three-month crisis stays. We had always reserved the right to allocate a medium-term bed when required, and this was often necessary when we had young people who were completing their HSC or who had limited living skills. Currently due to a lack of exit points other than four transitional housing units, the stays for clients seeking independent living are longer, up to five months. At present, we have a DOCS client since July 2011 anticipated to stay with us until at least March 2013. Rental accommodation has always been limited in [area], but currently supplies have dried up, due to the need for residents of a nearby village being flooded and having to rent for up to 12 months until their properties are habitable again. While this has affected supply, the allocation to under-16 year olds has never been abundant and their options are often limited to private rental brokerage assistance and the rental guarantee — both of these also in limited supply. The additional support hours required for young people in private or social housing is quite excessive, and while it is a preferred option for young people, it is not adequately resourced. Specialist homelessness service steward of a crisis CAP property
We still provide accommodation for between three and 12 months. Barriers to client exits into long- term accommodation include: . Longer public and community housing waiting lists; . The [Housing] Pathways system: waiting times for clients have doubled in the [area] region to up to 4–5 years; all clients now need to satisfy the criteria for ‘priority’ housing in order to receive an offer under 12 months’ waiting time; . Barriers of availability and affordability in the private rental market; . Discrimination in the private rental market: landlords not accepting Housing NSW bonds; lack of references; income limits (where the landlord can decide that a prospective tenant does not earn enough); slowing the application process (not showing properties or delaying a showing until other applications have been received); . Prior rental history: ‘unsatisfactory’ status, rental debts, eligibility rules, neighbourhood and behaviour issues; . Lack of options: we have to abide by Housing NSW Community Housing Division eligibility and access rules. Specialist homelessness service steward and community housing provider
These two responses point to the complexities in finding or developing exit points from supported accommodation provided either by specialist homelessness services or community housing providers. They describe the barriers that all interviewees for this research identified:
. Waiting times for social housing; . Lack of appropriate housing type for the client group; . The lack of social housing generally; . Barriers to eligibility for Housing Pathways (the single entry point for accessing public and community housing);
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 62 . Discrimination against particular categories of tenants in the private market; . Housing affordability in the private rental market; . The need some clients have for varying degrees of support in order to maintain accommodation when it is secured in either public housing, community housing or the private rental market.
5.3.1 Waiting lists for social housing Tables 11 and 12 show:
. The waiting list for priority clients alone for social housing are long, so even being categorised as such the chances of getting accommodation within a short space of time are slim in three out of the four regions; . For those wanting single accommodation in either studio or one-bedroom properties, the minimum wait is 2–5 years in most zones in Central Sydney and Greater Western Sydney, and in a very small proportion of zones in the Northern, Southern and Western regions. . In Central Sydney, the minimum waiting period for anything other than a studio is five years.
Table 11. Waiting list for social housing as at 30 June 2012149
Central Sydney Greater Western Northern region Southern and Sydney Western region Priority 2,263 1,603 626 4,931 General 10,575 20,714 11,515 50,548 Total 12,838 22,317 12,141 55,479
5.3.2 Housing Pathways In 2010, Housing NSW introduced Housing Pathways, a single application system for public housing, community housing and the Aboriginal Housing Office. A single state-wide waiting list, the NSW Housing Register, was established. Applicants can choose their preferred provider and, depending on who they have selected, they may get an offer of housing from either Housing NSW or a community housing provider. Applicants can choose to receive offers from both.150
The eligibility criteria for social housing are:
. Be an Australian citizen or a permanent resident; . Live in New South Wales; . Have a household income within the income-eligibility limits; . Not own any assets or property that you could live in; . Be able to sustain a successful tenancy, with or without support; . In general, be at least 18 years of age.151
That last eligibility criteria presents a specific problem for young people who are clients of specialist homelessness services. All crisis specialist homelessness services for young people
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 63 house 16–18 years of age who are generally excluded from this eligibility criteria. Others also accommodate young people up to 24 years of age, whom specialist homelessness services find it difficult to register on Housing Pathways as a priority applicant, and so are very unlikely to be accommodated as is evident from Table 11 above.
If we want to get our kids into community housing, they say, oh yeah, get your kids to fill out a [Housing] Pathways application and get themselves registered as a priority person. Our kids will never be registered as a priority person. The kids range from 16 to 24. If they are single, it doesn’t matter what disabilities they’ve got, they won’t get priority housing; they just won’t qualify. If you’re a mother with six kids escaping domestic violence, yeah, you’ve got a reasonable chance. In another part of our organisation, we can’t register our out-of-home care kids with community housing other than putting them onto Pathways, which means they may get housed in 8 or 9 years’ time — because they are deemed to be in the care of the state and the state is supposed to then be looking after them, which is all well and good, but the state’s not going to house them long-term, when they hit 18. SHS steward with crisis and transitional properties
Before the introduction of Housing Pathways, specialist homelessness services and community housing providers had negotiated ways of accommodating some of this group through partnerships, and accommodating other clients as well who were in critical need and for whom delaying stable accommodation would be detrimental. But that can no longer happen. Interviewee views on this are equivocal.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 64
Table 12. Waiting time by bedroom entitlement by number of allocation zones per NSW Housing Region as at 30 June 2012152
Central Sydney Greater Western Sydney Northern Region Southern and Western Region Studio 2–5 years in 3 2–5 years in 13 zones; No properties in 61 zones; up to 2 No properties in 100 zones; up to 2 years zones; 5–10 years 5–10 years in 1 zone; years in 3 zones; 2–5 years in 8 in 15 zones; 2– 5 years in 18 zones; 5–10 in 7 zones more than 10 years in 2 zones; 5–10 years in 5 zones; more years in 8 zones zones than 10 years in 1 zone 1 bedroom 5–10 years in 8 2–5 years in 6 zones; 5– No properties in 25 zones; up to 2 No properties in 69 zones; up to 2 years in zones; more than 10 years in 10 zones years in 3 zones; 2–5 years in 20 16 zones; 2–5 years in 31 zones; 5–10 10 years in 2 zones zones; 5–10 years in 20 zones; more years in 10 zones; more than 10 years in than 10 years in 11 zones 15 zones 2 bedrooms 5–10 years in 5 2–5 years in 3 zones; 5–10 No properties in 12 zones; up to 2 No properties in 49 zones; up to 2 years in zones; more than years in 11 zones; more years in 8 zones; 2–5 years in 20 28 zones; 2–5 years in 32 zones; 5–10 10 years in 5 zones than 10 years in 2 zones zones; 5–10 years in 21 zones; more years in 21 zones; more than 10 years in than 10 years in 17 zones 11 zones 3 bedrooms 5–10 years in 3 2–5 years in 2 zones; 5–10 No properties in 9 zones; up to 2 No properties in 33 zones; up to 2 years in zones; more than years in 6 zones; more years in 11 zones; 2–5 years in 22 36 zones; 2–5 years in 28 zones; 5–10 10 years in 7 zones than 10 years in 8 zones zones; 5–10 years in 15 zones; more years in 22 zones; more than 10 years in than 10 years in 21 zones 22 zones 4 plus bedrooms –10 years in 3 2–5 years in 2 zones; 5–10 No properties in 14 zones; up to 2 No properties in 58 zones; up to 2 years in zones; more than years in 6 zones; more years in 8 zones; 2–5 years in 22 27 years; 2–5 years in 24 zones; 5–10 10 years in 7 zones than 10 years in 8 zones zones; 5–10 years in 16 zones; more years in 18 zones; more than 10 years in than 10 years in 19 zones 14 zones
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 65
We’ve had a number of young people recently who we’ve been able to move into the affordable housing programs through a number of community housing organisations, but they are skipping the need to be on the common waiting list. Specialist homelessness service steward with transitional CAP properties
[Housing] Pathways has changed enormously our flexibility in our partnerships. In the old days, partnerships were formed over a cup of tea at the interagency where the homelessness service would say we’ve got a family needing accommodation and the community housing agency would say well we’ve got a property ... Pathways has taken away the flexibility for us to respond in that way. But it’s also about streamlining the process where the people most in need are hopefully receiving housing. So the process that we have developed with our support agencies, they are probably feeling that it is changing somewhat, so we are having to talk about the services we can provide now around Pathways, giving them information about what information they need to be able to provide us to assess the client as eligible for social housing, particularly around priority social housing, that community housing providers can now access people and access homes and put people onto waiting lists — very much working on the rationale that housing is such a scarce and limited resource, and we are legally bound about certain criteria. Nominations now from support agencies have to have eligibility around high priority. Community housing provider steward with transitional CAP properties
The whole model [of specialist homelessness services and community housing providers partnering to find flexible approaches to housing specialist homelessness service clients] became undercut ultimately by the introduction of Housing Pathways, which took the allocation process out of the relationships of two providers and mediated it through a shared register — with all of the rules about how people are going to get to the top of the list. That initially caused a great deal of angst to Supported Accommodation Assistance Program providers and really created tensions about their relationships with community housing providers, because they lost the set of relationships that they had. And there are strong arguments against the practice. If you believe that the allocation should go to the person who is genuinely in need, then it is queue jumping. Of course good social housing should mean that everyone gets social housing that needs it, so they are no longer in housing need. Adam Farrar.153
5.3.3 The lack of social and affordable rental housing Ultimately, the issue of exit points is about the availability of housing stock in either community housing, public housing or private rental market.
Social housing Exiting specialist homelessness service clients into social housing is acknowledged in each of the three Strategic Directions in the NSW Homelessness Action Plan:
Strategic Direction 1. Preventing homelessness: to ensure that people never become homeless Actions to achieve this included: Provide women and children who experience domestic and family violence with access to appropriate, long-term accommodation.
Strategic Direction 2. Responding effectively to homelessness: to ensure that people who are homeless receive effective responses so that they do not become entrenched in the system. Actions to achieve this included: Improve access to social housing for those who are homeless.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 66
Strategic Direction 3. Breaking the cycle: to ensure that people who have been homeless do not become homeless again. Actions to achieve this included: Increase the supply of social housing.154
However, nationally, demand for housing has been in excess of supply for many years. The National Housing Supply Council summarised the situation in its 2011 report thus:
Despite the increase in community housing, national social housing stock numbers have remained relatively stable in recent years and declined as a proportion of total housing stock. Growth of the community housing sector has been matched by a decline in public housing, and there was only a slight increase in social housing stock overall between June 2007 and June 2010. However, greater growth is anticipated beyond June 2010 as dwellings are delivered under the Social Housing Initiative and the National Partnership Agreement on Social Housing.
As noted in the Council’s previous reports, there has been a continuing decline in the social housing stock as a proportion of total housing stock, and an increased shortage of private rental dwellings at rents that are affordable and available for lower-income households.
The number of households with a propensity to occupy social housing is likely to increase. Separate projections for social housing supply have not been undertaken in this report, but the 2010 report identified a gap between the demand and supply of affordable rental and social housing of more than 100,000 dwellings. This gap is expected to grow despite the anticipated increase in supply from the Social Housing Initiative, the National Partnership Agreement on Social Housing and the National Rental Affordability Scheme.155
In New South Wales in 2012, there were 142,099 social housing dwellings (comprised of 112,310 public housing dwellings, 25,311 community housing dwellings and 4,478 state- owned and managed Aboriginal housing — this total does not include data for Aboriginal community housing organisations, which was not available for 2012).156
As detailed in Table 11 in this report, as at June 30, 2012 there were 50,548 people on the social housing waiting list in this state.
There is nothing that is being done in FACS [the Department of Family and Community Services] that is generating any new supply. Gary Moore157
Recognising this, the pre-budget statement for 2013–14 from the NSW Council of Social Service includes a call for building 3,000 additional community, public and Aboriginal houses over the four-year period 2013–14 to 2016–17, with 20% of this new supply being earmarked for formal partnership agreements with specialist homelessness services.158
Housing in the private rental market In 2012, the third report to the Council of Australian Governments assessing progress under the National Affordable Housing Agreement found:
. Nationally, there was no indication housing affordability had improved; . Rental affordability had worsened — especially for those with the lowest incomes; . New South Wales had a higher proportion of low-income households living in rental stress than the national average;
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 67
. The proportion was higher in capital cities: 45.2% of low-income households (the lowest 40% by income) living in capital cities were in rental stress in 2009–10, an increase from 38.1% in 2007–08.159
There is a dire shortage of dwellings for rental in the private market for households with very low to moderate incomes in this state. For example, in September 2012:
. 10% of rental stock was affordable for very low income households; . 27% was affordable for low-income households; and . 63% was affordable for moderate-income households.160
The impact of the shortage of affordable dwellings is intensified by higher-income households renting some of the affordable stock, so that lower-income households are displaced. For example, in 2006, there was a shortage of 44,500 private rental dwellings that were both affordable and available for very low income households in Sydney (those in the bottom 20% of the income distribution), a shortage of 5,900 in Newcastle and a shortage of 3,200 in Wollongong.161
5.4 The shape of specialist homelessness services in the future This research was begun prior to the release of the Going Home Staying Home Reform Plan in February 2013. While there were rumours and indications of the likely direction of reform at the time of the consultations for this report, nothing had been released from which to base any decisions about changing service delivery. Even so, many of this project’s interviewees were clearly re-assessing how their agencies delivered services and utilised CAP properties, and how the properties fit into the broader homelessness response system.
We think we need to orientate to more of a longer-term approach, because while we still advertise as a crisis service we tend to be working more in a medium-term way. But I guess we are waiting to hear what comes out of this reform. Specialist homelessness service steward with one crisis CAP property
We will adapt to the new SHS service specifications and agreements as required by funding. In order to remain viable, we will have to consider and actively seek alternative funding (philanthropic/fundraising/ partnerships etc.). Specialist homelessness service steward with crisis and transitional CAP properties
We’ve always anticipated a focus on early intervention and prevention, and that’s why 10 or 12 years ago we diverted some funds into a women’s resource centre to enable us to do that. So we are perfectly placed to move to a model that focuses more on those areas. Specialist homelessness service steward with a crisis and a small number of transitional CAP properties
Others have begun thinking about change.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 68
We would like to reorient but our resources are committed currently, and it is difficult to source additional funding. We are investigating two avenues currently, one being an out-of home care facility with a trauma-informed care model, and the other being [a] long-term transitional program with intensive support, mentoring and vocational education. We have investigated also a foyers-type/‘housing first’ model but this would require a purpose-built facility. Specialist homelessness service steward with one crisis CAP property
The maintenance funds have to come out of our rental costs. So we have had to ratchet back … the dollars that we would have used for our case management services now go into maintenance. So we are now offering less case management support. DOCS [Community Services] has shifted their expectation around how we support the client towards an early intervention, ‘housing first’ approach. Because of this and because there is quite significant organisational pressure to not run deficit programs, we are actually now seriously thinking about putting long-term low-rent people, not formerly homeless people into our dwellings, because they are a high yield — so we can shift our focus into early intervention. Specialist homelessness service steward combined with community housing provider
I think everything can be reoriented. I think that when they are saying that we are working with a system that is fairly ancient that is correct in some ways. I think there also has to be a level of services like us. I know they are looking to go to prevention and early intervention, but unfortunately we’ve got a boatload of young people who are homelessness or at risk of homelessness, and no prevention or early intervention strategies are going to assist them now, other than early intervention and prevention to stop it continuing. I really have a sense of that not being thought of. It’s like any government system, isn’t it? We have this pendulum that swings to the left or the right and we never quite find the middle. And I worry that that’s what’s going to happen again now. Specialist homelessness service steward with several transitional CAP properties
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 69
Acronyms used in the text
CAP Crisis Accommodation Program
CHP Community housing provider
DOCS Department of Community Services, NSW, now Community Services and part of the Department of Family and Community Services
OCH Office of Community Housing, Housing NSW, then the Community Housing Division, Family and Community Services, and now the Community and Private Market Housing Directorate, Housing NSW
SAAP Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
SHS Specialist homelessness services
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 70
Appendix 1. Shelter NSW Crisis Accommodation Program project consultation questions
1. What suburb or town are your agency’s CAP properties located in? 2. How many CAP properties does the non-government organisation have in its accommodation portfolio? 3. How many places/beds does this comprise? 4. Who is accommodated in the properties? Has the target group changed over time? 5. Is rent collected from those accommodated? What is the rent used for? 6. What length of stay were the properties intended to provide when first allocated by Housing NSW? 7. What length of stay do they provide now? If there has been a change, what has led to the change? 8. Where do these properties fit into the spectrum of homelessness provision by the NGO? That is, what is the nature of their current use? 9. Were the premises purpose-built or spot-purchased by Housing, or are they rented on the private market by Housing/the Land and Housing Corporation and head-leased to the non-government organisation? 10. Under what terms are the properties leased from the Land and Housing Corporation? 11. Who manages the properties on a day-to-day basis? If not the non-government organisation, who manages the properties and under what terms? 12. What is the current physical condition of the properties? When was the last property condition review and who undertook it? Will they require significant repair and maintenance in the near future? Who does the maintenance on the properties at present? 13. What insurance cover is there on the properties? 14. Is the non-government organisation re-orienting its homelessness service practice? In what way? 15. Where will the CAP properties fit within the new homelessness sector structure which is currently being developed? 16. What would be the impact on the service if the CAP properties were resumed by the Land and Housing Corporation for long-term social/affordable housing? 17. Are there any external factors that have an impact on how the CAP properties are utilised that need to be addressed in order to make better use of the properties? 18. Do you have any other comments?
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 71
Appendix 2. CAP Properties by local government area and Housing NSW region
November 2012
Key: . SHS crisis = Specialist Homelessness Service Crisis Accommodation . SHS trans = Specialist Homelessness Service Transitional Accommodation . Non-SHS crisis = Non-Specialist Homelessness Service Crisis Accommodation . Non-SHS trans = Non-Specialist Homelessness Service Transitional Accommodation
Notes: . Three specialist homelessness services were listed as ‘Unknown’ for type of services, one each in Coastal Sydney, South Eastern, and North Coast Regions. They have not been counted in the total CAP figure. . Two specialist homelessness services were listed as having an office funded under CAP, both in the Greater Western Sydney Region. They also have not been counted in the All CAP figure.
Central Coast
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS Non-SHS Total crisis trans Gosford 2 18 2 4 26 Wyong 3 16 0 9 28 TOTALS 5 (9%) 34 (63%) 2 (4%) 13 (24%) 54 (100%)
. 72% are SHS properties, 28% are non-SHS properties; . 13% are crisis properties, 87% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 72
Coastal Sydney
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Ashfield 2 10 0 13 25 Botany Bay 0 8 0 7 15 Burwood 2 2 0 0 4 Canada Bay 0 6 0 2 8 Canterbury 1 5 0 17 23 Hornsby 0 0 0 3 3 Hunters Hill 0 0 0 0 0 Hurstville 0 2 0 6 8 Kogarah 1 2 0 5 8 Ku-ring-gai 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Cove 1 0 0 0 1 Leichhardt 3 21 1 22 47 Manly 0 0 0 0 0 Marrickville 1 40 0 29 71 Mosman 0 0 0 0 0 North Sydney 2 0 0 0 2 Pittwater 0 0 0 0 0 Randwick 1 16 0 2 19 Rockdale 0 9 0 7 16 Ryde 1 4 0 0 5 Strathfield 0 0 0 0 0 Sutherland 1 12 1 2 16 Sydney City 1 6 1 7 15 Warringah Waverley 2 10 0 0 12 Willoughby 0 3 0 0 3 Woollahra 0 1 0 0 1 TOTALS 19 (6%) 157 (52%) 3 (1%) 122 (41%) 301 (100%)
. 58% are SHS properties, 42% are non-SHS properties; . 7% are crisis properties, 93% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 73
Greater Western Sydney
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Auburn 0 5 0 0 5 Bankstown 1 4 1 6 12 Baulkham Hills 0 5 0 0 5 Blacktown 7 30 0 10 47 Blue Mountains 5 7 0 3 16 Camden 0 1 0 2 3 Campbelltown 9 14 2 12 37 Fairfield 3 13 0 24 40 Hawkesbury 0 2 0 7 9 Holroyd 2 7 0 13 22 Liverpool 5 51 1 11 69 Parramatta 2 8 0 2 12 Penrith 2 6 0 30 38 Wollondilly 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 36 (12%) 153 (49%) 4 (1%) 120 (38%) 313
. 61% are SHS properties, 39% are non-SHS properties; . 13% are crisis properties, 87% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 74
Hunter
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Cessnock 0 1 0 0 1 Dungog 0 0 0 0 0 Gloucester 0 0 0 0 0 Great Lakes 0 0 0 2 2 Lake Macquarie 0 7 2 11 20 Maitland 1 0 1 9 11 Muswellbrook 1 6 0 0 7 Newcastle 4 29 0 51 84 Port Stephens 0 4 0 4 8 Singleton 0 0 0 0 0 Upper Hunter 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 6 (4%) 56 (39%) 3 (2%) 77 (55%) 142 (100%)
. 43% are SHS properties, 57% are non-SHS properties; . 6% are crisis properties, 94% are transitional housing.
Illawarra
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Kiama 0 0 0 0 0 Shellharbour 4 16 0 2 22 Shoalhaven 1 8 0 12 21 Wingecarribee 0 0 1 2 3 Wollongong 3 78 1 3 85 TOTALS 8 (6%) 102 (79%) 2 (1%) 19 (14%) 131 (100%)
. 85% are SHS properties, 15% are non-SHS properties; . 7% are crisis properties, 93% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 75
New England
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Armidale 2 15 0 0 17 Dumaresq 0 0 0 0 0 Glen Innes 0 0 0 0 0 Severn Gunnedah 0 0 0 2 2 Guyra 0 0 0 0 0 Gwydir 0 0 0 0 0 Inverell 1 1 0 2 4 Liverpool Plains 0 0 0 0 0 Moree Plains 1 0 0 10 11 Narrabri 1 0 0 2 3 Tamworth 0 0 2 24 26 Regional Tenterfield 0 0 0 0 0 Uralla 0 0 0 0 0 Walcha 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 (8%) 16 (25%) 2 (4%) 40 (63%) 63 (100%)
. 33% are SHS properties, 67% are non-SHS properties; . 12% are crisis properties, 88% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 76
North Coast
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Ballina 1 8 0 0 9 Bellingen 0 0 0 0 0 Byron 2 3 0 0 5 Clarence Valley 1 20 0 0 21 Coffs Harbour 2 3 0 2 7 Greater Taree 2 6 0 5 13 Hastings 1 2 3 16 22 Kempsey 2 2 0 12 16 Kyogle 0 0 0 0 0 Lismore 2 30 0 2 34 Nambucca 0 0 0 4 4 Richmond Valley 0 6 0 0 6 Tweed 0 1 0 9 10 TOTALS 13 (9%) 81 (55%) 3(2%) 50 (34%) 147 (100%)
.
. 64% are SHS properties, 36% are non-SHS properties; . 11% are crisis properties, 89% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 77
Riverina Murray
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Albury 1 10 0 1 12 Balranald 0 0 0 0 0 Berrigan 0 0 0 0 0 Bland 0 0 0 0 0 Carrathool 0 0 0 0 0 Conargo 0 0 0 0 0 Coolamon 0 0 0 0 0 Cootamundra 0 0 0 0 0 Corowa 0 0 0 0 0 Deniliquin 0 4 0 1 5 Greater Hume 0 0 0 0 0 Griffith 1 2 0 0 3 Gundagai 0 0 0 0 0 Hay 0 0 0 0 0 Jerilderie 0 0 0 0 0 Junee 0 0 0 0 0 Leeton 0 0 0 0 0 Lockhart 0 0 0 0 0 Murray 0 0 0 0 0 Murrumbidgee 0 0 0 0 0 Narrandera 0 0 0 0 0 Temora 0 0 0 0 0 Tumbarumba 0 0 0 0 0 Tumut 0 0 4 0 4 Urana 0 0 0 0 0 Wagga Wagga 1 13 1 0 15 Wakool 0 0 0 0 0 Wentworth 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 3 (8%) 29 (74%) 5 (13%) 2 (5%) 39 (100%)
. 82% are SHS properties, 18% are non-SHS properties; . 21% are crisis properties, 79% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 78
South-East
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Bega Valley 0 11 0 0 12 Bombala 0 0 0 0 0 Boorowa 0 0 0 0 0 Cooma-Monaro 0 0 4 0 4 Eurobodalla 1 3 1 6 11 Goulburn 1 0 0 0 1 Mulwaree Harden 0 0 0 0 0 Palerang 0 0 0 0 0 Queanbeyan 5 6 0 2 13 Snowy River 0 0 0 0 0 Upper Lachlan 0 0 0 0 0 Yass Valley 0 0 0 0 0 Young 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 2 (6%) 20 (57%) 5 (14%) 8 (23%) 35 (100%)
. 63% are SHS properties, 37% are non-SHS properties; . 20% are crisis properties, 80% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 79
Western
Suburb SHS crisis SHS trans Non-SHS crisis Non-SHS trans Total Bathurst 6 11 0 0 17 Blayney 0 0 0 0 0 Bogan 0 0 0 0 0 Bourke 0 0 0 0 0 Brewarrina 1 0 0 0 0 Broken Hill 0 0 0 0 0 Cabonne 0 0 0 0 0 Central Darling, 1 0 0 0 1 Cobar 0 0 0 0 0 Coonamble 0 0 0 0 0 Cowra 0 0 0 0 0 Dubbo 0 7 2 1 10 Forbes 1 0 0 0 1 Gilgandra 0 0 0 0 0 Lachlan 0 0 0 0 0 Lithgow 0 0 1 0 1 Mid-Western 0 0 0 0 0 Region Narromine 0 0 0 0 0 Oberon 0 0 0 0 0 Orange 1 1 1 0 3 Parkes 0 0 0 0 0 Walgett 0 0 0 0 0 Warren 0 0 0 0 0 Warrumbungle 0 0 0 0 0 Weddin 0 0 0 0 0 Wellington 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 10 (29%) 19 (56%) 4 (12%) 1 (3%) 34
85% are SHS properties, 15% are non-SHS properties; 41% are crisis properties, 59% are transitional housing.
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 80
Endnotes
1 The term ‘housing service’ is used in this report to refer to the use of the dwelling, which is separate from the building itself, which also has an exchange value — following the distinction by Olsen: ‘There are clearly two housing markets. There is a demand for and supply of a consumer good which we shall call housing service. There is also a derived demand for and supply of an investment good which we shall call housing stock’. (‘A competitive theory of the housing market’, American Economic Review, vol.59, no.4, September 1969, p612, f.1). 2 Commonwealth of Australia The Road Home. A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness, 2008. 3 This system is to be replaced by the not-too-dissimilar, national registration system for community-housing providers, following the Community Housing Providers (Adoption of National Law) Act 2012, assented to on August 28. 4 Housing NSW, ‘Interim Subsidy for Crisis Accommodation’, factsheet, June 2010. 5 Guy Johnson, Sharon Parkinson and Cameron Parsell, Policy shift or program drift? Implementing Housing First in Australia, AHURI Final Report 184, AHURI, Melbourne, 2012. 6 Industry Commission, Public Housing, volume 1, Report, report 34, Canberra, 1993, p134. 7 Katie Florance, What Housing Issues Contribute to Homelessness?, Shelter Brief 44, Sydney, 2010. 8 Some of the buildings being used for supported accommodation for homeless people have been built, fully or partly, with funds other than the Commonwealth’s Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement grants to the states, and specifically with non-profits’ own-source income (from philanthropic fundraising, etc.). In addition, some dwellings might have been donated to non-profits for this purpose. Different types of specialist homelessness services have been more dependent on government for the capital and recurrent costs of their operations than others. This research project will focus on the CAP-funded dwellings because of the specific public interest (and public-policy interest) that there is in facilities financed with public money. 9 Housing NSW, Future Directions For Specialist Homelessness Services: Consultation Paper, NSW Government Family and Community Services, 2012. 10 Purdon Associates Pty Ltd, CAP Review. Report to Department of Housing and Regional Development, Canberra, 1995. 11 Sinclair Knight Merz Pty. Ltd. Current Operations of the Crisis Accommodation Program Report (Preliminary draft), 1998. 12 Thomas Goodall Associates Report of the NSW SAAP Evaluation, 1998. 13 Purdon Associates Pty Ltd, CAP Mapping Project, Department of Family and Community Services, 1999. 14 Dr. Andy Butlin, Crisis Accommodation Program Review 2004 Final Report, Amity Management Consulting Group, 2004. 15 Purdon Associates 1995 pp22–23. 16 Purdon Associates 1995 pp22–23. 17 Greg McIntosh and Janet Phillips, The Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement, e-brief, Parliamentary Library, Parliament of Australia, 2001, online at
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 81
23 National Affordable Housing Agreement 2013 p4. 24 National Affordable Housing Agreement 2013 p4. 25 COAG National Affordable Housing Fact Sheet viewed 3 February 2013 at
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 82
50 The LGAs in each of the 2013 Regions are: Central Coast – Gosford, and Wyong; Coastal Sydney – Ashfield, Botany Bay, Burwood, Canada Bay, Canterbury, Hornsby, Hunters Hill, Hurstville, Kogarah, Ku-ring-gai, Lane Cove, Leichhardt, Manly, Marrickville, Mosman, North Sydney, Pittwater, Randwick, Rockdale, Ryde, Strathfield, Sutherland, Sydney City, Warringah, Waverley, Willoughby, Woollahra; Hunter – Cessnock, Dungog, Gloucester, Great Lakes, Lake Macquarie, Maitland, Muswellbrook, Newcastle, Port Stephens, Singleton, Upper Hunter; Illawarra – Kiama, Shellharbour, Shoalhaven, Wingecarribee, Wollongong; New England/North West – Armidale, Dumaresq, Glen Innes, Severn, Gunnedah, Guyra, Gwydir, Inverell, Liverpool Plains, Moree Plains, Narrabri, Tamworth Regional, Tenterfield, Uralla, Walcha; North Coast – Ballina, Bellingen, Byron, Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Greater Taree, Hastings, Kempsey, Kyogle, Lismore, Nambucca, Richmond Valley, Tweed; Riverina Murray – Albury, Balranald, Berrigan, Bland, Carrathool, Conargo, Coolamon, Cootamundra, Corowa, Deniliquin, Greater Hume, Griffith, Gundagai, Hay, Jerilderie, Junee, Leeton. Lockhart, Murray, Murrumbidgee, Narrandera, Temora, Tumbarumba, Tumut, Urana, Wagga Wagga, Wakool, Wentworth; South East - Bega Valley, Bombala, Boorowa, Cooma – Monaro, Eurobodalla, Goulburn, Mulwaree, Harden, Palerang, Queanbeyan, Snowy River, Upper Lachlan, Yass Valley, Young; Western - Bathurst, Blayney, Bogan, Bourke, Brewarrina, Broken Hill, Cabonne, Central Darling, Cobar, Coonamble, Cowra, Dubbo, Forbes, Gilgandra, Lachlan, Lithgow, Mid-Western Region, Narromine, Oberon, Orange, Parkes, Walgett, Warren, Warrumbungle, Weddin, Wellington. Greater Western Sydney – Auburn, Bankstown, Baulkham Hills, Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Camden, Campbelltown, Fairfield, Hawkesbury, Holroyd, Liverpool, Parramatta, Penrith, Wollondilly. 51 Housing NSW, 2012. 52 Thomas Goodall Associates Report of the NSW SAAP Evaluation 1998 p229. 53 DOCS 1997 p33; OCH 2000 p10. 54 AIHW 2009 p3. 55 Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement Bilateral Agreement for New South Wales 2003–04 to 2007–08 2003 p18. 56 Housing NSW 2012. 57 Office of Community Housing Crisis Accommodation Program Strategic Directions 2000–2003 2000 (1) p8. 58 CHSA 1999 p8. 59 Office of Community Housing 2000 (1) p9. 60 Supported Accommodation Advisory Council Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP) Issues 2001. 61 Butlin 2004 p26. 62 Butlin 2004 pvi. 63 Adam Farrar, former Executive Officer, NSW Federation of Housing Associations interviewed for the present research 2013; Gary Moore, Executive Officer, Homelessness NSW interviewed for the present research. 2012–13. 64 CAP guidelines 1989 p14. 65 Office of Community Housing 2000 (1) p 13. 66 Housing NSW 2006. 67 Housing NSW Outsourcing Maintenance of Crisis and Transitional Accommodation Properties accessed 3 March 2013 at
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 83
77 Housing NSW (2012) Community Housing Asset Management Policy p6. 78 Housing NSW (2013) Outsourcing Maintenance of Crisis and Transitional Accommodation Properties viewed on 4 February 2013 at
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 84
110 Registrar of Community Housing 2010 p9. 111 Registrar of Community Housing 2010 p13. 112 Registrar of Community Housing 2010 p9. 113 Gary Moore 2013. 114 Coffey, M., Curtis, D., and Clay, N. (2006) Discussion Paper: YAA’s Response to NSW Federation Housing paper ‘Mapping the Emerging Issues in Supported Housing, and Identifying Strategies to Strengthen Existing Arrangements’, Youth Accommodation Association. 115 National Regulatory System Community Housing (NRSCH) viewed 4 February 2013 at http://www.nrsch.gov.au/. 116 NRSCH Frequently Asked Questions for Community Housing Providers viewed on 4 February 2013 at
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 85
136 NSW Federation of Housing Associations (FHA) Conference Discussion Paper on Housing and Support 2004. 137 FHA 2004 p11. 138 FHA 2004 p11. 139 Purdon 1994 p22. 140 Gary Moore 2013. 141 FACS 2013. 142 FACS 2013 p15. 143 FACS 2013 p15. 144 FACS 2013 p15. 145 For example: (a) Strategic Directions outlined in the 1997–1999 SAAP/CAP Plan included: promotion of increased flexibility in provision of housing options for SAAP service users; forging links between SAAP services and community housing providers; developing models of transitional housing and support; develop protocols between housing providers and SAAP services about case management. (DOCS et al 1997 pp39–45). (b) Strategic directions in the 2000 CAP plan included: improving the planning and coordination between SAAP and the social housing system; diversifying housing assistance to meet the varied needs of homeless people; assisting homeless people with support needs to obtain stable housing. (OCH 2000 (1) p2. (c) The 2003–04 t0 2007–08 bilateral agreement between the Commonwealth and NSW included: developing more responsive options for homeless people and those at risk of homelessness; assisting clients with support needs to live independently and maintain successful tenancies; encouraging more successful tenancies through effective prevention and early intervention strategies (Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement 2003 p12). 146 NSW Government (2009) A Way Home: Reducing homelessness in NSW. NSW Homelessness Action Plan 2009– 2014. 147 FACS 2013 p17. 148 Commonwealth–State Housing Agreement 1999 p8. 149 Family and Community Services ‘Expected Waiting Times for Social Housing 2011 General Housing Approved Applicants’, accessed at
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 86
financial year. (See also Shelter NSW, ‘NSW housing factsheet’, 26 February 2013, viewed on 30 April 2013:
Crisis Accommodation Program in NSW: a background paper — Shelter NSW 87