Evaluation of New
Homelessness Support
Services in Tasmania
Report Five: Evaluation of Supported Accommodation
Facilities – Common Ground Tasmania
Housing and Community Research Unit,
University of Tasmania
June 2014
1
This report was prepared by Julia Verdouw, Joel Stafford and Daphne Habibis
Contact details:
Housing and Community Research Unit (HACRU)
School of Sociology and Social Work
University of Tasmania
http://www.utas.edu.au/sociology-social-work/centres/hacru/
Acknowledgements
The HACRU team would like to thank the service workers and clients who participated in the
evaluation. Their thoughtful reflections have enabled the team to gain a comprehensive
picture of the delivery of the program from a range of perspectives.
The team would also like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Housing Tasmania staff
in locating and collating information relevant to the program.
2
Contents
CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 6
1
OVERVIEW OF COMMON GROUND TASMANIA ......................................................................................... 14
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.
DATA COLLECTION METHOD AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 25
2.1
2.2
2.3
3
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICE ACTIVITY DATA ............................................................................................................ 25
SERVICE PROVIDER CONSULTATION.................................................................................................................... 25
CONSULTATION WITH SUPPORTED ACCOMMODATION FACILITIES RESIDENTS ............................................................. 26
SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION ........................................................................................... 28
3.1
3.2
4
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 14
SPECIAL ISSUES FACING HOMELESSNESS SERVICES ................................................................................................ 15
RECENT HOMELESSNESS POLICY REFORMS .......................................................................................................... 16
COMMON GROUND HISTORY AND PROGRAM LOGIC ............................................................................................. 20
SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT ................................................................................................................................. 28
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND SERVICE OPERATIONS ....................................................................................... 31
EVALUATION OF SERVICE PROVISION AND OUTPUTS ................................................................................ 40
4.1 SERVICE ACTIVITIES SPECIFIED........................................................................................................................... 40
4.1.1 Service Activities Specified in the Funding Agreement and Residential Management Agreements .. 41
4.1.2 Performance Measurement of Service Activity .................................................................................. 41
4.1.3 Description of the characteristics of the personnel identified to undertake the activities ................. 42
4.1.4 Description of Service Levels............................................................................................................... 42
4.1.5 Client demographic profile ................................................................................................................. 47
4.1.6 Client Presenting Circumstances ........................................................................................................ 49
4.1.7 Services Provided ................................................................................................................................ 53
4.1.8 Level of attainment measured ........................................................................................................... 56
4.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF TENANCY SERVICES ........................................................................................................... 59
4.2.1 To what extent does the organisation provide safe, secure and affordable housing for people at risk
of homelessness? ............................................................................................................................................ 59
4.2.2 To what extent does the organisation provide effective assessment and allocation procedures
designed to assist those who have recently been absolute or chronically homeless to secure affordable
housing? .......................................................................................................................................................... 63
4.2.3 To what extent has the organisation been able to implement processes that support tenants to
sustain their tenancies? .................................................................................................................................. 67
4.2.4 To what extent has the organisation been able to encourage tenant participation in service delivery
and operations? .............................................................................................................................................. 69
4.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPORT SERVICES............................................................................................................ 71
4.3.1 To what extent has the organisation provided tenants with increased access to a range of health
and support services?...................................................................................................................................... 71
4.3.2 To what extent has the organisation been able to deliver a positive environment conducive to social
inclusion and participation, including opportunities for tenants to reunite with and increase connections
with family members? .................................................................................................................................... 73
4.3.3 To what extent has the organisation provided opportunities for tenants to pursue a range of
education, training and employment options? ............................................................................................... 75
3
5
EVALUATION OF SERVICE PARTICIPANT OUTCOMES .................................................................................. 77
5.1
OUTCOME 1: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THOSE WHO ARE HOMELESS OR AT IMMINENT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS ACCOMMODATED
WHERE THE ORGANISATION HAS THE REASONABLE CAPACITY TO DO SO AT EITHER OF THE SERVICE LOCATIONS? ........................... 77
5.2
OUTCOME 2: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE TENANTS ASSISTED IN THEIR TRANSITION TO INDEPENDENCE THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE
CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TAILORED TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO WHAT EXTENT ARE TENANTS
SUPPORTED TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THEIR NEEDS ASSESSMENT? ........................................................... 81
5.3
OUTCOME 3: TO WHAT EXTENT HAVE TENANTS ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN EDUCATION, TRAINING OR EMPLOYMENT AS
APPROPRIATE TO THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS AND CIRCUMSTANCES? ..................................................................................... 83
5.4 OUTCOME 4: TO WHAT EXTENT ARE TENANTS ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED AND SUPPORTED TO MAXIMISE THEIR LEVEL OF
INDEPENDENCE AND LIFE SKILLS ................................................................................................................................... 85
5.5 OUTCOME 5: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE ORGANISATION INCREASED FAMILY REUNIFICATION AND SOCIAL CONNECTION
AMONGST TENANTS? ................................................................................................................................................ 86
5.6 OUTCOME 6: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE ORGANISATION IMPROVED RESIDENT HEALTH AND WELLBEING? ....................... 89
5.7 OUTCOME 7: TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE ORGANISATION PROVIDED STABILITY OF TENURE FOR TENANTS? ....................... 90
6
DISCUSSION OF SERVICE PROVISION AND OUTCOME INFORMATION ........................................................ 93
6.1 CGT SERVICE MODEL ..................................................................................................................................... 93
6.2 OCCUPANCY LEVELS AND ALLOCATIONS .............................................................................................................. 98
6.2.3 Improving Targeting and Service Integration ................................................................................... 102
6.3 TENANCY AND REPORTING ............................................................................................................................. 103
7
RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................................ 107
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................... 110
APPENDIX A: COMMON GROUND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA NEW YORK, SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND NEW SOUTH
WALES ............................................................................................................................................................ 114
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW SCHEDULES ............................................................................................................. 116
APPENDIX D: SERVICE ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES .............................................. 122
4
ACRONYMS
ACGA
Australian Common Ground Alliance
AHURI
Australian Housing and Urban Research Unit
AHT
Affordable Housing Tenant
AIHW
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
CHL
Community Housing Limited
CGT
Common Ground Tasmania
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services
HACRU
Housing and Community Research Unit
HT
Housing Tasmania
NAHA
National Affordable Housing Agreement
NPAH
National Partnership Agreement - Homelessness
SAF
Supported Accommodation Facility
SHS
Specialist Homelessness Services
SP
Service Provider
ST
Supported Tenant
TAO
Tasmanian Audit Office
VI
Vulnerability Index
5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This evaluation of two Supported Accommodation Facilities (SAFs) provided by Common
Ground Tasmania at sites in Barrack Street and Campbell Street in Hobart, is the final output
of the Housing and Community Research Unit’s (HACRU) Evaluation of New Homelessness
Support Services in Tasmania. The report is part of the suite of evaluations on homelessness
support services funded under the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness in
Tasmania, including the Northern Tasmanian Supported Accommodation Facilities (SAFs).
The Common Ground Tasmania evaluation was undertaken between November 2013 and
February 2014.
The aim of this evaluation is to provide a description of the implementation and current service
activities of Common Ground Tasmania (CGT), report on available service data, evaluate
CGT service provision in relation to service implementation and service participant outcomes,
and draw out the implications of the findings and provide recommendations for Common
Ground Tasmania and Housing Tasmania. The report provides an overview of the
implementation and operation of CGT, including service establishment, program logic and
evolving service arrangements. It analyses service provision and outputs, focusing primarily
on supported tenants. This includes the service activities specified in the Funding Agreement
and performance measures, service data including service levels, client demographics, client
presenting circumstances, service provided, and indicative costs of the service.
The evaluation of tenancy and support service implementation and operation includes
assessment and allocations procedures and tenant support and participation, including
provision of an environment conducive to social inclusion and participation. The report also
evaluates service participant outcomes including the match between service capacity and the
extent to which the target group was accommodated, the extent to which tenants achieved
independence and case management plan goals, participated in education, training and
employment opportunities, maximised independence and life skills, increased family
reunification and social connection and improved health, wellbeing, and stability of tenure.
Methods included analysis of the available demographic and service activity data and
consultations with service providers and clients. Between 19 November 2013 and 15 January
2014, the evaluation team interviewed eleven supported tenants and thirteen service providers
from the two SAF facilities and the broader housing and homelessness sector. All interviews
were audio-recorded with participants’ informed consent and subjected to content and
thematic analysis.
6
This evaluation found that CGT is providing secure, safe and stable long-term housing to two
groups of individuals: those with low-incomes, or affordable housing tenants (AHTs), and
individuals with a history of chronic or episodic homelessness or who are at risk of becoming
homeless, known as supported tenants (STs). The provision of this service is carried out
across two modern purpose-built facilities in Hobart city, offering studio and one-bedroom
apartments at income-based rent to STs, in addition to a range of indoor and outdoor
communal facilities. On-site therapeutic support is provided to tenants with a history of
homelessness.
Supported tenant respondents generally reported high levels of satisfaction with their tenancy,
including the facilities available to them, the safety and security of the sites, the support they
received, and the availability of activities to increase social connectivity.
They noted
improvements to their health and well-being which they attributed to the safety and security of
their tenure, or as the result of the support provided in conjunction with their tenure. They also
described the development of personal life skills and independence, and for some tenants,
reunification with family members which marked a significant achievement in their lives.
The evaluation found that one of the key strengths of CGT’s capacity to assist residents to
sustain their tenancies is the separation of tenancy, concierge and support services.
All
service provider respondents believed separating tenancy, security and support roles was a
critical feature of service provision and that the service is prioritising care to its tenants and
seeking to provide high quality services aligned with CGT service objectives. For example,
collaboration between the services assisted in reducing tenant instability, and helped build a
‘normalising’ environment for tenants through increased informal social interactions.
The evaluation found a number of areas where the service provided by CGT to Tasmania’s
homeless population could be improved. In making this assessment it should be noted that the
evaluation took place at a time when CGT’s service delivery model was changing from the
contracting out of tenant support and concierge services, to one of direct delivery of all
services apart from property management.
The evaluation identified some issues concerning allocations procedures and outcomes. CGT
has invested significant effort in developing policy and operational procedures for the
allocation of properties to the homeless population. These include strict eligibility criteria and
processes including initial screening, the use of the Vulnerability Index survey and an in-depth
report on the history of potential tenants. Despite this, respondents in the broader housing
and homelessness services sector identified a number of concerns relating to CGT’s
allocations process that they believe impact on its ability to reduce homelessness. These
included concerns about slow allocation processes, eligibility criteria, and a perceived
7
reluctance to accept the more hard-to-house tenants. This was regarded as problematic by
most housing and homelessness sector respondents because CGT is funded to house high
support needs individuals within the chronically homeless population. If this contribution is
reduced it limits the capacity of the sector as a whole to house this group, and shifts demand
to other services who are not funded to meet it.1
These concerns are supported by findings that allocations take four to six weeks, that some
clients referred as eligible for a CGT vacancy are rejected, despite the availability of places,
and that occupancy targets for STs have only recently been met. The Barrack Street facility
opened in June 2012 with 47 units and the Campbell Street facility opened in December 2012
with 50 units. Under the Funding Agreement, occupancy levels for STs are a minimum of 40
per cent to a maximum of 50 per cent. At the end of December 2013, 23 per cent of ST units
were still vacant (see Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2, pp.44-5). By comparison, the Queensland
Common Ground 146-unit facility opened in August 2012 and was fully tenanted by November
2012, suggesting CGT ST units were filled relatively slowly.
Vacancies in AHT units are similarly high, with 29 per cent of units vacant in March 2014 (see
Table 4-2 and Figure 4-2, pp.45-6). Although this evaluation focuses on STs, high vacancy
rates amongst AHTs impacts on the financial sustainability of the facilities as a whole. Our
analysis of rental charges for AHTs shows that high vacancy rates may be due to the rent
setting model. For example, to avoid housing stress, a single AHT in a 1-bedroom unit must
be earning at the top end of the low-wage earner bracket, and in some cases must be earning
more than the maximum allowed by CGT for AHT eligibility.2
Service integration and communication between CGT and the broader homelessness sector
was also identified as an area requiring attention. There was a perception amongst sector
respondents that one of the reasons why CGT was cautious about its capacity to support
tenants with high and complex needs was that it is not drawing sufficiently on the depth of
expertise and support available within the sector. In their view, improved referral, consultation
and collaboration with the full range of available services across housing, education, health
and family services, would increase the capacity of CGT to meet the demand within the
chronic homelessness population for housing. They also believed that communication about
allocation decisions and collaboration with referring services needed strengthening. 3 The
interview data suggests that differences in service philosophy have contributed to these
differing perceptions about CGT’s policies and procedures. Although all informants believed
in the strengths of the Common Ground model for meeting the needs of the chronically
1
2
3
See Section 4.2.2 (pp.64-6), Section 5.1 (pp.77-79) and discussion in Section 6.2 (p.97-99 and p. 101-2).
See Section 4.2.1 (pp.63) and discussion in Section 6.2 (p. 97).
See Section 4.2.2 (p.65-6), Section 5.1 (p. 79) and discussion in Sections 6.2 (p.99-102).
8
homelessness, there are important differences between the homelessness sector’s clientcentred model of care and emphasis on supported housing and CGT’s service philosophy that
aims to balance sustainable business practices with a supportive model of housing
emphasising personal responsibility and pathways to independence.
This difference seems to have been a contributor to the changes that were made in late 2013
from CGT’s contracting out of support services to Anglicare to its direct provision of support
services. This development followed difficulties between CGT and Anglicare in reaching
agreement on an appropriate and equitable service and funding specification, and an
appropriate set of performance measures. No Funding Agreement between the two parties
was ever executed, exposing both parties to risk and disputes. Although the new arrangement
maintains a separation between tenancy and support services because tenancy management
services are provided by Rock Property Management, there are a number of concerns relating
to the new arrangement. Despite the efforts of both CGT and Anglicare to minimise the effect
on tenants, the change did impact on the capacity of the service to provide support for a
period. The loss of service continuity meant that, at the time of data collection, some tenants
had not re-engaged with the new support providers. Further concerns are the capacity of the
new arrangements to provide continuity of support to exiting tenants who need support to
sustain them in their new accommodation, and the extent to which support workers have
access to the specialist expertise and knowledge of the homelessness service sector.4
These issues of targeting, allocations and arrangements with third party providers point to a
need to improve governance and performance management of the CGT SAFs, firstly in
relation to providing clear lines of responsibility for delivery of service outcomes, and secondly,
to ensure fidelity to a Housing First service model in relation to targeting the most vulnerable
service users. This includes providing rapid access to housing, not requiring tenants to be
‘housing ready’ and meeting some of the principles that underpin the desirability of separating
housing and support in relation to continuity of support, and access to homelessness service
provision knowledge and expertise.5
Given the emphasis on service integration within the NPAH, and its importance for the
integrity of the Housing First model, the concerns about the level of collaboration and
communication between CGT and the housing and homelessness sector also require
attention. The interview data suggests the implementation of Housing Connect is addressing
some concerns around allocation and targeting, but strengthening co-operation between CGT
and other homelessness services should be a priority for all stakeholders. This is especially
4
5
See Section 5.2 (p.81-2) and Section 6.2.3 (pp. 95-7).
See discussion in Section 6.1 (pp. 92-97) and 6.2 (pp. 97-102).
9
important given CGT’s movement to a more direct model of service provision, since this
arrangement has the potential to curtail collaboration with other services. Service capacity and
client outcomes are maximised by sharing sector knowledge through referrals, strong
networks and collaborative arrangements.
Further recommendations relate to supporting tenants who are establishing or reconnecting
with family, to move into stable and appropriate family accommodation without the loss of
support, clarifying the permanent status of tenancies, and improving monitoring and data
collection in order to improve quality assurance and an evidence-based approach to service
delivery through robust evaluation.6
Recommendations
CGT is a relatively new and innovative response to the housing of homeless people in the
broader Tasmanian landscape of supported accommodation facilities. Its staff demonstrate a
strong commitment to providing affordable and high quality housing along with quality support
services to vulnerable clients. They do this with the intention of affording tenants secure, longterm and sustainable tenancies through which to build independence, and improved health
and well-being. Innovation involves risk, trial and error, and to that extent we should expect
that CGT could sustain improvements to assist in more fully addressing the needs of current
and future clients in Tasmania.
Our recommendations are that:
1. Housing Tasmania should strengthen its oversight of CGT and tighten performance
management to ensure CGT delivers service outcomes as identified in the Funding
Agreement.
2. Housing Tasmania should review its arrangements for oversight of contractors to ensure
the contractor’s arrangements with third party providers will deliver service outcomes as
identified in the Funding Agreement.
3. To strengthen targeting of the homeless population:
3.1
Housing Tasmania should consider changing its funding arrangements with CGT
from block funding to activity based funding. The Funding Agreement should specify
levels of support need for allocations.
6
See Discussion in Section 6.3 (p.102-5).
10
3.2
CGT should ensure robust, timely and transparent allocations of STs by improving
allocation timeframes, eligibility criteria and allocations tools.
Need assessments
should be consistent with Housing Connect’s assessment process and with
evidence-based industry practice for Housing First models of service provision.
They should include identifying level of support need. Referring services should be
provided with more detailed information on the reasons why a referral is rejected
and what would be required for the client to be allocated a tenancy.
4.
CGT should strengthen its collaboration and communication with the housing and
homelessness sector and develop strategies for achieving this. Housing Tasmania should
make evidence of service integration between CGT and the housing and homelessness
sector a Key Performance Indicator.
5.
To improve provision of support to tenants we recommend that:
5.1. CGT provide support arrangements that align with the Funding Agreement and the
principles of tenant support that underpin the Housing First model in relation to
continuity of support to exiting tenants with on-going support needs.
They should identify strategies for transitioning STs who currently have, or desire
family, including spouse and/or children, into stable and appropriate family housing
facilities without the loss of support.
5.2. CGT provide support arrangements that align with the Funding Agreement and the
principles of tenant support that underpin the Housing First model in relation to
service provision by personnel with experience, expertise and knowledge of, as well
as strong networks with, the homelessness service sector.
5.3. CGT ensure service specifications, including KPIs and funding arrangements,
between CGT and third party support providers, are in place prior to service
delivery.
5.4. CGT strengthen communication mechanisms between their support staff and STs
with reference to key service goals. CGT should engage in meaningful and timely
consultation and communication with STs about any proposed changes to tenant
support arrangements to ensure they understand any new arrangements.
5.5. Housing Tasmania should ensure the Funding Agreement with CGT makes
provisions for changes to the service model or service arrangements.
11
5.6. Housing Tasmania and CGT review the CGT service objectives to more accurately
reflect the goals and priorities of STs as identified in their case management plans.
This will enable the process of reporting against objectives to be meaningful and
have potential to improve practice. The updated service objectives should be
reflected in the Funding Agreement.
6. CGT should address the low occupancy rates amongst AHTs including reviewing its rent
setting model because of the potential impact on the financial viability of the SAF facilities.
7. CGT should provide STs with clear, accurate information about the permanent status of
their tenancy. This will require clarification about whether the objective of CGT is to
provide permanent housing for STs or if supporting STs towards independent living
includes an expectation they will transition out of the facility into independent rental/home
ownership. The Funding Agreement should clarify the permanent status of the tenancies.
8. To improve monitoring and evaluation of service delivery we recommend that:
8.1. Housing Tasmania strengthen regular service monitoring of CGT. This may include
the introduction of six-monthly reviews of CGT over the next 18 months to ensure
operations align with Funding Agreement objectives and the needs of homeless
people in the state are being addressed in a timely and optimal way.
8.2. Monitoring should include reviewing the program logic and service outcomes for
their alignment with the objectives of the Housing First model of service delivery.
8.3. Housing Tasmania should tighten monitoring of CGT performance standards.
Current reporting requirements are not sufficiently comprehensive, and there are
gaps in KPIs as well as a lack of integration between datasets. We recommend that
the current output performance specifications for CGT are updated, and that
improvements are made to the internal consistency between purpose of funding,
strategic objectives and consumer outcomes. Indicators and targets should be
commensurate with the main purpose of the service.
8.4. To improve performance standards monitoring, Housing Tasmania should require
CGT to improve data capture. It should introduce into its Funding Agreement a
benchmark for maximum percentage levels for ‘’other/unknown entries’ in key
indicators. Where benchmarks are exceeded, Housing Tasmania should require
CGT to provide an explanation for this.
Housing Tasmania should ask the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to improve performance standards
monitoring under the Specialist Homelessness Services data collection so that data
12
collected informs evaluation and reporting of service delivery outputs and outcomes
more effectively than is presently the case. This should include reducing the use of
‘unknown’/’other’ response categories in service reports.
13
1 Overview of Common Ground Tasmania
This Chapter provides background information on two of the Southern region’s supported
accommodation services for homeless individuals in Tasmania, CGT. It provides an overview
of the research evidence on special issues facing homelessness services and implications for
service provision, a summary of the policy context including recent homelessness policy
reforms, and an account of the introduction of Common Ground services into Australia and
their program logic.
1.1
Introduction
This evaluation of the CGT Supported Accommodation Facilities in southern Tasmania is the
final output of the Housing and Community Research Unit’s (HACRU) Evaluation of New
Homelessness Support Services in Tasmania. The Supported Accommodation Facilities
evaluated in this report include the facilities and services delivered by CGT at Barrack Street
and Campbell Street in Hobart.
The services at these locations form one initiative amongst a suite of services developed by
Housing Tasmania in accord with the requirements of the National Partnership Agreement on
Homelessness (NPAH) to provide an integrated response to the needs of Tasmania’s
homeless population. The NPAH was signed in 2008 and ended on 30 June 2013. A
transitional NPAH is currently effective from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 20147, after which the
future of the NPAH remains uncertain. It provided $18.9 million dollars of joint funding to
Tasmania over four years. Initiatives delivered under the NPAH are intended to contribute to
the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) objective of supporting people who are
homeless or at risk of homelessness to achieve sustainable housing and social inclusion.
These initiatives emphasise: the timeliness of service interventions; increasing social
integration of people at risk of homelessness; and moving people out of the crisis services
system into stable forms of tenure. This approach is translated into the Tasmanian context
through the Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan (DHHS, 2009; 2012a; See
also DHHS 2010, 2012b).
According to the Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan the initiatives of the NPAH
are designed to complement other initiatives undertaken in Tasmania either to achieve the
objectives of other National Partnership Agreements or in accord with reforms to the
Tasmanian public service. The Implementation Plan cites several other initiatives over the
7
See http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/homelessness/thetransitional-national-partnership-agreement-on-homelessness
14
2008-9 to 2012-13 period, including reforms to the Department of Health and Human Services
principally aimed at achieving better integration and co-ordination of the commissioning and
delivery of family support services (approx. $35 million), additional funding to reform aspects
of Mental Health Services (approx. $47 million) and Drug and Alcohol Service (approx. $17.1
million) reforms focused on improving integration between specialist services, allied health
and human service providers, and private and community based service organisations (DHHS
2009).
1.2
Special Issues Facing Homelessness Services
There are a number of challenges associated with delivering services to people who are
homeless or at risk of homelessness. One of the greatest of these challenges is service
engagement. The characteristics of the homeless population are such that few will express
their need for services in the proactive manner that populations have traditionally engaged
with state housing services. Rather, people who enter the health, human and allied services
system in a state of homelessness often enter for reasons other than those involving tenure,
are usually referred via a crisis or police service or invited in via the efforts of charitable
organisations. Other people experiencing homelessness move through a social network of
friends, relatives and associates and rarely present to homelessness services (Mackenzie and
Chamberlain 2003).
Engagement with services can also present a challenge even when people enter into a
service program by choice. This occurs when a client resists engaging with psycho-social
services offered in addition to an accommodation service.
Another special issue facing services for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness
is mobilising the resources of the right type, level, and period of time to address the potentially
diverse personal circumstances of clients. These circumstances can range from financial
hardship, through addictive behaviours involving gambling, alcohol and other drugs, to
significant physical disability, poor mental health, and traumatic disorders caused by
accidents, childhood abuse or neglect or negative interactions within the justice system.
Identifying efficient and effective models of service delivery that are known to achieve the
desired outcomes for clients and governments is another issue that faces the delivery of
homelessness services (Eardley et al 2008; Flateau et al 2008; Johnson et al. 2012). There
remains significant controversy over the best way to construct, resource, implement, and
monitor services for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. Some of this
controversy is driven by the underlying challenge of correctly identifying the causes of
homelessness in a given population. Another driver involves correctly identifying the lessons
15
learned from current and prior attempts to address homelessness and translating these
lessons into services better able to meet the needs of clients.
Research provides strong correlations between homelessness and major contributing factors,
including effective strategies for interventions by service providers. Evidence shows that there
are strong correlations between homelessness, or unstable housing, or demanding
behaviours leading to unstable housing, and a range of diagnosed conditions including mental
illness, drug and alcohol disorders, intellectual disability, behavioural disorders, and in some
cases, chronic health disorders. The literature indicates that between 30 and 85 per cent of
homeless people have experienced or are experiencing some type of mental illness, and that
this rate is highest amongst young people (AHURI 2013; Bisset et al 1999; Homelessness
Australia 2011). Research also strongly attests to the need for early interventions in the form
of secure housing (AHURI 2013) and pro-active support (Atkinson et. al 2007; Bisset et al.
1999; Seelig & Jones 2004) in the management of client conditions as an important aspect of
the road toward recovery. Research also highlights the cost-effectiveness of providing
permanent supportive housing to homeless people with a mental illness, strengthening the
claim that stabilization of housing for people with mental health conditions reduces the overall
cost to the system (McLaughlin 2010).
Evidence also points to a number of other important factors service providers must consider in
relation to the provision of housing for people with unstable housing histories. Community
attachments (for example, feeling welcome and connected) are an important function of
security of housing tenure, in particular for those recovering from a mental illness (AHURI
2013). Effective services should attempt to connect and refer clients to mainstream services
whenever possible, with separate provision of housing and support services to minimise the
perception by vulnerable tenants that support is part of ‘the system’ (Tsemberis and Amussen
1999). It is also critical for service providers to have in-depth knowledge and understanding of
the factors that render tenants vulnerable to housing insecurity (Seeling and Jones 2004) and
for strong co-operation and coordination across services within the housing and
homelessness sector (Geller and kowalchuk 2000; O’Malley and Croucher 2005).
The evaluation discussion in Chapter 6 of this report is informed by these and other special
issues that form the evidence base for the delivery of effective homelessness services in
Tasmania.
1.3
Recent Homelessness Policy Reforms
16
The Australian Government White Paper on homelessness, The Road Home (Australian
Government 2008) articulates three broad strategies for achieving a reduction or elimination of
homelessness in Australia:

Turning off the tap: prevention and early intervention to stop people from becoming
homeless and to lessen the impact of homelessness.

Improving and expanding services: improving and expanding the service response to
homelessness to achieve sustainable housing, improve economic and social participation,
and end homelessness.

Breaking the cycle: getting people back on their feet and moving them through the crisis
system to stable housing and, where possible, employment, with the support they need so
homelessness does not re occur.
The NPAH states that jurisdictions should aim to develop implementation plans that encode
these strategies. The NPAH focuses on reducing homelessness by targeting key groups:
rough sleepers, people experiencing homelessness more than once, people escaping
violence (especially women and children), children and young people including those subject
to or exiting care and protection, Indigenous people and people exiting social housing or
institutional care such as health, mental health and juvenile justice institutions, or adult
prisons.
‘Rough sleepers’ refers to the ‘primary’ homeless, and are also known as the
‘chronically’ or ‘absolute’ homeless.
These are defined as people without conventional
accommodation, who live on the streets or in other public places such as parks, squatting in
buildings or using vehicles, for temporary shelter (NPAH 2008).
The NPAH points to three key strategies for action by jurisdictions to effectively address
homelessness:
1. More effort to prevent and intervene early to stop people becoming homeless and to
lessen the impact of homelessness. Effective prevention and early intervention
strategies need to address both individual and structural causes of homelessness.
2. Investments in services that can help people get back on their feet, find stable
accommodation and, wherever possible, obtain employment. More effort is required to
target people who are: unaccompanied children, regular rough sleepers, repeatedly
homeless, living at high risk of homelessness, struggling with the impact of cycles of
homelessness or disempowered due to mental illness. Causes of homelessness such
as escaping violence and special needs must be responded to with better access to
sustainable housing and significant follow up support.
17
3. Building a better-connected service system, including improved links between
homelessness services, and between homelessness services and mainstream
services to improve outcomes for individuals, reduce duplicate processing across
agencies, and enable faster transition from temporary accommodation to stable
housing. Improved integration of homelessness services, employment and training
providers and Centrelink aims to lift economic and social participation outcomes for
people who are homeless.
The Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan (2009-2013) initiatives, including the
development of dedicated homelessness facilities, address the National Partnership outputs,
identified through a number of outputs designed to address the above goals:
a) Implementation of the A Place to Call Home initiative,
b) Street to home initiatives for chronic homeless people, or rough sleepers.
c) Support for private and public tenants to help sustain their tenancies through strategies
including tenancy support, advocacy, case management, financial counselling and
referral services, and
d) Assistance for people leaving child protection services, correctional and health
facilities, to access and maintain stable, affordable housing8.
The Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan established a benchmark figure of 385
for primary homelessness in the state and established a target of halving this number to 193
by 2010. Priorities included expanding the range of homelessness services including targeted
specialist support to assist the most long-term and at risk homeless people to transition into
long-term housing, building an integrated service system linking support services to ensure
sustained tenancies and seamless pathways through housing options, and increasing sector
capacity to support integrated service delivery through workforce strategies, systems and
infrastructure.
Five dedicated homelessness facilities have been established and delivered under the SAF
programs chosen by Housing Tasmania to meet the NPAH core outputs9, three in the North
and two in the South. Among other programs commissioned by Housing Tasmania to meet
the objectives of the NAHA, the SAFs may be classified as ‘Housing First’ services and
although variances in the current SAF models are evident, it is not unreasonable to read their
main objectives and strategies as specified in the NPAH as Housing First in orientation. Key
8
The statement of the key strategies and core outputs appears in Part 2 of the NPAH.
(a), (b) and (d).
9
18
characteristics of this approach to addressing homelessness include (Johnsen and Teixeira
2010):

Targeting of the most vulnerable consumers10

Rapid access to permanent, independent housing (usually in scatter-site housing)

No requirement regarding ‘housing readiness’ or conditions to housing

Consumer choice

Separation of housing and support services11

Recovery as an on-going process through provision of integrated and comprehensive
community based support (generally located off-site, on-call)

Community integration, with no more than 15 per cent of housing units in any single
building used to accommodate clients.
These features contrast with a ‘Continuum-of-Care’ model of homelessness service provision
which instead offers a range of services organised to elevate clients out of their initially poor
situation by progressively applying treatments designed to address specific pathologies. In
return for participating in social, behavioural and health service programs, clients move
progressively through emergency, temporary and permanent housing in a linear or step-bystep approach.
Johnson et al. (2012) identify key differences between the two approaches to addressing
homelessness. First, the Housing First model does not encode a program logic whereby
access to accommodation is conditional on the client’s compliance with a regime of treatments
and continued ‘good behaviour’ such as maintaining sobriety or recording no instances of
violent behaviour. Housing First models are holistic in approach and Housing First services
accept that a client may not follow a linear path to independence and stability. Second, the
Housing First model provides support and accommodation services separately. This service
principle is based on the argument that clients are better supported if the same service follows
a client throughout their accommodation career whether or not that career consists of one or
many tenancies (Johnson et al. 2012: 5-7).
A simplified sequential representation of the SAF program logic is depicted in Figure 1-1:
Specialist Homelessness Services Program Logic below.
10
Here, ‘vulnerable’ refers to those who find coping with or succeeding in traditional services or services
interventions problematic. This group refers to the most chronic homeless individuals who are often unable to
abide by the demands of housing readiness (for example, sobriety, basic livings skills, personal hygiene,
willingness to engage in treatment) that are expected by many supportive housing models (Pearson et. al 2009 in
Johnsen & Teixeira 2010).
11
Support services in a Housing First model are referred to as multidisciplinary Assertive Community Treatment
(ACT) teams including a team of support workers who are located off-site, but on call 7-days a week and provide
services in the client’s home or neighborhood (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010).
19
Figure 1-1: Specialist Homelessness Services Program Logic
1.4
Common Ground History and Program Logic
Common Ground is a non-profit social service organisation whose supported accommodation
model of homelessness services has been adapted in many countries. Common Ground was
first established in 1990 in New York City by Rosanne Haggerty whose goal was to provide
high quality, affordable, and permanent housing to low-income earners and the chronically
homeless. Particular to the Common Ground approach is the 'Street to Home' initiative
targeting the chronic homeless population, and the use of the Vulnerability Index (VI) survey
as a tool to identify the most vulnerable and at-risk homeless individuals for housing. 12
Housing is targeted at the most vulnerable homeless individuals, particularly those who have
established life on the streets, as opposed to seeking shelter and other support or assistance,
and those who are most vulnerable due to debilitating medical and mental health conditions
(Common Ground 2014). The program provides rough sleepers with direct access to stable
and secure housing, through which clients are then connected with appropriate community
services to prevent continuation of the cycle of rough sleeping (SA Gov 2011).
12
The VI survey, explained more fully in section 3.2 (Service Provision Processes), is a tool developed by
Common Ground NY, to identify the medical vulnerability of individuals sleeping rough. Data is gathered through
self-reports of health status and utilization. The first independent study (Cronley et. al, 2013) on the
effectiveness of the VI indicates that official hospital records correlate with self-reporting for hospital use. It is
not predictor of self-reporting for physical health conditions, mental health problems and substance use.
20
The Common Ground model aligns with a number of the defining characteristics of the
Housing First model. The accommodation is not intended to be transitional in the sense of
crisis or emergency accommodation, but rather is intended to provide rapid-access long-term
accommodation in a ‘normalising’ approach to housing (Parsell et al. 2013: 3). This approach
includes encouraging tenants to move on from their Common Ground tenancy (Reynolds &
Fearn 2012). It emphasises ‘supportive’ rather than ‘supported’ or managed housing. This is a
two-fold shift in focus. First, rather than managing a person’s homelessness through provision
of short-term, crisis housing, the model seeks to solve homelessness through the provision of
housing in conjunction with access to appropriate support services. Second, the housing
facilities provided by the service are treated as any other type of housing in which tenants
have their own apartments and are expected to hold and manage their own property leases
(ACGA 2013).
Housing First and Common Ground services also share a principle of separate provision of
tenancy and facility management services and social and health support services. There is
also an expectation that the tenant’s engagement with support services is for the most part
voluntary and not a condition of their tenure. The Common Ground model differs from the
Housing First model in two ways. First, the Common Ground model utilises the construction of
congregate (or big building) settings through which to house and support tenants rather than
scatter site, or mainstream housing, settings. Support for tenants in the Common Ground
model is thus located onsite, within the building complex, rather than through visits by support
staff. Second, Housing First models generally limit Housing First clients in any one building to
15-20 per cent (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010; Parsell et. al 2013) 13 whereas the Common
Ground model operates on a social mix of approximately 50 per cent supported (previously
homeless) tenants, and 50 per cent low-income tenants.
The Australian Common Ground Alliance (ACGA) was formed in 2008, and provides a
mechanism for the growing number of fledgling Common Ground organisations to network for
support and the transfer of knowledge. As a relatively new model in Australia, Common
Ground projects promised to deliver innovative supportive housing solutions to the most
13
This limit is used in determining the residential mix of the Northern Tasmania SAFs, where similar to other
Housing First models, the (20 per cent) limit is based on a target client group with medium to high support
needs.
21
Box 1: Common Ground Facilities in Australia
South Australia
There are four Common Ground facilities in South Australia, including two residential
buildings in Adelaide city. Franklin Street opened in February 2008 with 37 units and Light
Square opened in early 2011 with 52 units. Both facilities are managed by Common
Ground Adelaide Limited, and overseen by a board of directors. The service offers a
range of education and training programs, specialised health services, dietician, dental
care and health, art and fitness programs for tenants. There are two housing sites in Port
Augusta, comprising 35 newly renovated units at Boston Street and Augusta Terrace.
These opened in early 2013 and are designed to address the needs of local homeless
Aboriginal people. Wesley Country Housing provides housing management services and
the Salvation Army provides tenant support services.
New South Wales
A 104-room residential building in Camperdown, Sydney, opened in November 2011.
Housing NSW manages the project, MA Housing is the community housing provider, and
the Inner city Homelessness Coalition (the Haymarket Foundation, Salvation Army,
Wesley Mission, Vincent de Paul and lead agency Mission Australia) provide support
services. A large ancillary network of support services provides (mostly) on-site services
and activities to tenants and local neighbourhood residents, including psychology, GP,
chiropractor, podiatry, substance abuse support, Centrelink services, Yoga & mediation
classes, breakfast club, a food bank scheme, art classes and veterinary clinic visits.
Queensland
A 146 apartment-complex in Hope Street, South Brisbane, opened in August 2012 and
was fully tenanted by November 2012. Common Ground Queensland provides housing
management services, and Micah Projects is the support service provider. The
Queensland Department of Communities provides on-going funding for support and 24hour concierge services. Micah Projects has developed a partnership between Mater
health services, St Vincent’s health care, Greater Metro South Brisbane Medicare, Metro
North Medicare Local and Homeless to Home (H2H) Healthcare to provide integrated
support to tenants.
ACT
Plans for a facility in Canberra are currently underway, overseen by the Common Ground
Canberra Board.
Victoria
Elizabeth Street Common Ground (ESCG) opened in Melbourne in August 2010, with 131
self-contained studio apartments. Community Housing is the property manager and
HomeGround provides support and 24/7 concierge services. Staff are supported by the
Allied Health and Ancillary Services program involving a range of partners who deliver on
and off-site therapeutic, health, recreational, vocational and educational services to
tenants. ESCG has also developed partnerships with a number of employment and
education centres providing a range of on-site classes for tenant learning and skills
development.
22
Tasmania
Two purpose-built facilities opened in Hobart in December 2012 and are managed by
CGT.
Barrack Street CGT provides 25 studio apartments and 22 one-bedroom
apartments, including a number of wheelchair access and universal access apartments.
Campbell Street CGT provides 28 studio apartments and 22 one-bedroom apartments.
Rock Property provides housing management services, and CGT provides support and the
majority of security/concierge services (ACGA 2013). Facilities also include common room
areas (indoor and outdoor), special purpose rooms such as art, computer, laundry, or
training rooms. The Barrack Street CGT facility opened to tenants in June 2012, and the
Campbell Street facility opened in December 2012.
vulnerable chronically homeless people, with their mission to ‘end and prevent chronic
homelessness in Australia’ (ACGA 2013). In an Australian housing sector frustrated with
existing homelessness services, Common Ground promised a permanent end to
homelessness through socially mixed communities and in collaboration with government,
business and philanthropic sectors (Parsell et. al 2013). This development has led to the rapid
growth of Common Ground organisations in Australia. Since 2008, nine Common Ground
buildings have been constructed in five Australian capital cities, with one building in planning
stage in Canberra. Nationwide this equates to over 600 supportive housing apartments
currently offering accommodation to a mix of formerly homeless and low-income tenants.
While following the Common Ground model of supportive housing, the corporate structures
and management styles differ from site to site. For example, while Common Ground Adelaide
Ltd and CGT are registered companies with a board of directors directly funded by the
government, the New South Wales and Queensland facilities operate through separately
funded services such as Mission Australia and the Salvation Army, who have adopted the
supportive housing model alongside their other service programs.
Similar to its New York parent model, the Common Ground organisations in Australia target
primary homeless and low-affordability tenants. Key criteria for all Australian Common Ground
facilities include (ACGA, 2013):

High quality, permanent, affordable housing manifest in apartment buildings with selfcontained facilities, communal facilities, separate clinical facilities and staff offices for
support services (visiting and onsite), tenancy services and security staff.

The separation of support services from tenancy services, who together co-ordinate
approaches for addressing tenant issues towards fostering sustainable housing tenure.
23

A safe, secure environment, including a 24-hour concierge service and other measures
such as key-card access and double-door airlock entry.

A social mix of former chronically homeless people and AHTs, generally in a 50:50 ratio.

Pro-active on-site support services focussed on supporting tenants to sustain their
tenancies and connecting them to the local community. Engagement with support services
is voluntary and not a condition of tenancy.
There are some differences in the implementation of Common Ground sites across Australia.
The Victorian, New South Wales and Queensland organisations were developed by directors
and managers within the housing and homelessness services sectors who advocated for the
introduction of the model, in part by forming a national alliance through which to co-opt key
political advocates and promote the model across Australia. In South Australia and Tasmania,
the initiative was developed by their then Premiers who consulted directly with Rosanne
Haggerty, the founder of Common Ground, and drew on a range of supporters including the
national alliance (ACGA) to establish Common Ground services in their respective states
(Parsell et. al 2013). Two factors assisted in the success of establishing the models in
Australia with such rapidity. First, the ACGA was successful in promoting Common Ground
through both the private and public sectors, enabling the state Common Ground organisations
to distance themselves from the traditional state-based welfare model and garner the support
of corporate, philanthropic and government sectors in the birth of each organisation. Second,
the economic and political climate in Australia, including changes in state governments and
the election of Kevin Rudd as Prime Minister, raised homelessness issues to public
consciousness as a national policy issue. This resulted in national policy objectives to align
growth in social housing stock as a core strategy to reduce chronic homelessness. This was
facilitated by the economic stimulus measures, which included capital investment in public
works introduced by the then Labor government in response to the global financial crisis
(Parsell et. al 2013). In Tasmania, this was critical for the commitment of $17.5 million through
the National Building Economic Stimulus Plan for the construction of Common Ground
facilities in Campbell Street, Hobart.
24
2.
Data Collection Method and Analysis
This chapter describes the data collection method and analysis, which is based on numeric
service activity data and qualitative interviews with service providers and residents.
2.1
Description of Service Activity Data
The service activity data analysis is based on data provided by the responsible agencies, CGT
and Anglicare (until August 2013), to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW)
under the Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) data collection. The main data elements in
this collection include a descriptive statistical summary of various service outputs derived from
the SAAP data collection. This entails: the number of clients assisted; the number of closed
and on-going support periods; the average duration of support periods measured in days; and
the number of support periods involving the provision of accommodation.
Demographic data are also reported in the SHS collection including: the age and sex of
clients; Indigenous status; mental health status; income source; the length of time since the
client last had permanent accommodation; clients’ presenting region and referral pathway;
clients’ reason for seeking assistance; and the number of times clients had experienced
homelessness.
In addition to the SHS collection the information described in Chapter 4 draws on CGT’s report
submissions to Housing Tasmania, data reporting in support of AHURI research on supportive
housing in Australia in May 2013, and summary analysis of a survey conducted by UTas
School of Medicine on behalf of CGT during 2012 – 13.
2.2
Service Provider Consultation
The HACRU team consulted with personnel involved in the provision of support services to
CGT, including staff from CGT and Anglicare. Stakeholders in the homelessness sector who
have an interest in CGT services (for example, allocations) or who work intensively with
prospective tenants of CGT were also consulted. Interviews were conducted with 13 service
providers between 19 November, 2013 and 15 January 2014. The interviews varied in length,
in a range of 45 minutes to 2 hours. The interviews were conducted in the offices of the key
agencies consulted. The interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ informed consent,
and later transcribed. The data were then subject to content and thematic analysis. A generic
interview schedule was developed (see APPENDIX B) but customised for particular services
and respondents.
25
Service providers were asked to discuss:

What their professional role entails,

The strengths and weaknesses of the Common Ground (supportive accommodation)
model,

Factors that facilitate or hinder service delivery,

Factors that facilitate or hinder collaboration between service providers, and the broader
homelessness sector,

Perceptions of tenant satisfaction with the support and accommodation offered,

The effectiveness of the support and accommodation on resident health and wellbeing,
and other CGT outcomes objectives, and

How the service might be improved.
Changes to personnel and arrangements for service provision at CGT meant that the number
of service providers available for interviews was limited, and in some cases personnel had
limited information about the service as they were so new. For example, only two support staff
were available for interview as the other four support staff were too recently employed to
provide meaningful data. The evolving nature of service provision also meant that staff were
sometimes unable to describe the processes the service would be employing in the future, for
example, what case management tools would be used, or the data reporting obligations, or
provide the detail of what their role would entail.
2.3
Consultation with Supported Accommodation Facilities Residents
The research team interviewed supported tenants from both Common Ground facilities. CGT
staff facilitated this process by talking to residents about the evaluation and distributing
information sheets. Staff subsequently invited at least five residents from each facility to
participate in the evaluation. Eligibility was based on purposive sampling including length of
tenure greater than 2 months, inclusion of both males and females, and variances in level of
support need. CGT staff provided the team with a list of tenants and scheduled times for
interviews, and also provided the interviewer and interviewee with a quiet interview room at
the CGT site within which to conduct the interview. Residents were provided with $30 cash on
completion of their interview in recognition of the costs associated with their contribution.
Based on the above eligibility, tenants were selected for interviews on a first come basis. This
may have created a bias towards tenants who were more likely to be engaged and satisfied
with the facility and associated support services, rather than others experiencing difficulties
and who were less satisfied.
26
Eleven interviews were conducted with residents; five from Barrack Street and six from
Campbell Street. The interviews were conducted between 25 November and 3 December
2013. Purposive sampling ensured coverage of age (25 to 50 years) gender (7 females, 5
males) and a range of support needs (low, medium, high).
The face-to-face interviews varied in length, ranging between 30 minutes to one hour. Prior to
the interview, the interviewer confirmed that the participant understood why they were being
invited to participate in the evaluation and obtained their written consent. The interviews were
audio-recorded with participants’ informed consent and later transcribed. The data were then
subject to content and thematic analysis. The resident interview schedule is provided in Error!
Reference source not found..
Clients were asked to discuss:

The process of applying for a CGT apartment,

The things they liked/disliked about living at the facility,

Any concerns they had about their tenancy,

The types of support they received at the facility,

Satisfaction with the support available to them at the facility,

Significant changes in their life since moving into the facility,

How the support and accommodation might be improved to better suit their needs,

How long they anticipated staying in their unit.
27
3 Service Implementation and Operation
This Chapter describes the establishment of Common Ground in Tasmania, the
implementation of the service and its operational features.
Drawing data from public
documents, literature reviews and interviews with stakeholders, this chapter sets out the
context in which CGT has established its services, the particular service model applied by
CGT including the evolution of service arrangements since implementation, and service
provision processes including tenant eligibility criteria, allocations procedures and service
personnel roles. 14
3.1
Service Establishment
CGT was established in 2008 as a not-for-profit social housing service. CGT is a corporate
entity represented by a board of eight directors, overseeing the management of the two
accommodation facilities and activities undertaken within the properties including tenancy
management, security/concierge services and support services to tenants. CGT was initiated
through the interest of the then Labor Premier of Tasmania, Paul Lennon, who assisted in the
establishment of the first board of directors to oversee the inception and implementation of
CGT. Similar to other Common Ground organisations, the establishment of the service was
also made possible because of collaboration between State, Federal, and Local governments,
and the private (business) and philanthropic sectors. For example, State and Federal funds
were used for all CGT building capital expenditure, a range of donors contributed to building
cash reserves ($474, 969) during 2011-12 to assist in meeting costs associated with full
operation and the State government assisted in meeting the costs of the first year of
operation. Funding for the design and construction of the buildings was provided through the
Australian Government. The Barrack Street facility was jointly funded through A Place to Call
Home initiative, Commonwealth Funding and the NPAH 2009, at a cost of $9.4 million. The
Campbell Street facility was funded under the National Building Economic Stimulus Plan at a
cost of $17.5 million. Implementation funding15 by DHHS included one-off operational costs
and support for 2011-12 ($250, 000) and Vacancy Compensation Funding for 12 months post
commencement ($200,000). The DHHS also provides on-going operational block funding16 of
14
This evaluation was completed at a time when the delivery of concierge and support services were changing
from externally contracted, to direct service provision. It therefore can provide no comment on how these new
arrangements are affecting service and tenant outcomes.
15
Outlined in the ‘Funding Agreement’ commenced 1 June 2012 – 30 June 2015.
16
Block funding refers to one-off payments, rather than activity-based funding which is the provision of funding
based on effective completion of contracted activities as outlined in the Funding agreement. Activity-based
funding is the most common funding model applied to housing service providers in Tasmania.
28
$500,000 (plus indexation) per annum to CGT for provision of support services to supported
tenants at both Barrack Street and Campbell Street facilities. CGT also raises revenue
through tenancy rental income and income from car-park leases.
A number of initiatives within the homelessness services sector coincided with the
implementation of CGT. Under the Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan a survey
of Tasmania’s homelessness population was undertaken in November 2011 as a joint initiative
by CGT and the Salvation Army. The 50Lives/50Homes street survey aimed to identify how
many homeless people were living rough on Hobart streets in order to establish the
benchmark for the NPAH commitment to halve homelessness and to identify potential tenants
for the CGT facilities. Level of need was established through the administration of the
Vulnerability Index. To manage the survey and the response to its findings, the Homelessness
Reference Group (HRG) was formed, comprised of specialist accommodation workers from a
range of organisations. Its role included establishing eligibility and priority for the 50 new CGT
facilities for rough sleepers that would become available when the facilities opened in 2012
(Donoghue & Smalley 2012). Of the 149 rough sleepers surveyed, 106 (71%) were identified
as vulnerable and suitable for permanent housing (CGT 2013).
Common Ground Tasmania Program Logic
The primary purpose of funding, as outlined in the CGT Funding Agreement, is to provide high
quality, long-term and affordable housing to individuals chronically or primary homeless
immediately prior to accessing to the service, including access to specialist support services,
tenancy and security services. The CGT Residential Management Agreements defines
chronic, or primary homelessness according to the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics
definition of absolute or primary homeless as being: “people without conventional
accommodation (living on the streets, in deserted buildings, improvised dwellings, in parks
etc.)”. Like other Common Ground organisations in Australia, CGT is a relatively new model
for meeting the accommodation needs of the chronically homeless. Distinctive features
include:

An integrated package of tenancy, support and /concierge security services in a socially
mixed, long-term housing environment.

An emphasis on independent living and empowerment for clients to make choices and to
engage with the community. This is captured in the term ‘supportive’ rather than
‘supported’ accommodation.
29

An emphasis on the health needs of vulnerable clients, with the Vulnerability Index a
critical tool in identifying vulnerability risk factors.
The three core strategic goals of CGT are to ensure operational excellence; achieve financial
sustainability, and to prepare the organisation for future growth (CGT 2011-12). Its constitution
sets out the principles and objectives of the company which follow the broad principles of the
ACGA criteria for a supportive housing model, including high quality permanent and affordable
housing, a safe, secure environment, coordinated on-site support services and a diverse
social mix. Objectives include:

the provision of social rental housing for the previously homeless and low income seeking
affordable housing

the provision of support into the housing model to enable formerly homeless tenants to
sustain independent tenancies

supporting tenants to move into independent rental/home ownership where appropriate.

promoting client independence within each person’s capacity and choice

a self-sufficient life assisting people out of the homelessness cycle into independence

provision of accommodation, services and facilities that promote dignity, purpose and wellbeing.
Occupancy targets established under Housing Tasmania’s Residential Management
Agreement (RMA) with CGT establish two target client categories. Category one is drawn
from the recently or chronically homeless population (immediately prior to accommodation, as
specified in the Funding Agreement), and these clients are eligible for a Commonwealth
Health Care Card. Occupancy levels for category one tenants are a minimum of 40 per cent
to a maximum of 50 per cent. Category two is drawn from the population of individuals who
could not access ‘affordable’ residential housing and is established at a minimum of 50 per
cent and maximum of 60 per cent of CGT property rentals17. These tenants are low-income
wage earners whose eligibility is based on the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS)
income limits.18 Tenants from both categories must be:

An Australian citizen or lawful permanent resident

A Tasmanian resident

18 years or older
17
CGT percentages vary slightly from ACGA principles, which state the supported tenant/affordable housing
tenant ratio is generally 50/50.
18
The 2013-14 household income eligibility limits are $45,956 for one adult and $63, 535 for a couple (DSS 2013)
30

Not have financial assets exceeding the specified limit as per Housing Tasmania’s
Housing Assessment policy ($35,000 per household)

Not owners of their own home.
This evaluation considers CGT as a whole service, but focuses specifically on the first
category of tenants who are eligible due to having recently been absolutely or primary
homeless. These are the STs and it is for this group that CGT receives on-going funding from
the DHHS ($500,000 per annum) to improve independent living skills and sustain tenancies
and whose objectives and outcomes are identified in the Funding Agreement between CGT
and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).
The following section draws on analysis of the service, and other literature, as well as
interviews with service providers, to provide an outline of the implementation of the CGT
service. It describes eligibility and allocation procedures for the ST population, service
implementation and operationalization and changes that have been made over time.
3.2
Program Implementation and Service Operations
Service Arrangements
At service implementation the support, tenancy and facility management, and security and
concierge services, were contracted by CGT to three distinct services: Anglicare, Community
Housing Limited (CHL), and DCM Security Services respectively. This separation of service
provision was designed to decouple the three tasks of providing accommodation, support
services, and security services in order to maximise tenant capacity to maintain independent
living arrangements. External contracting arrangements were developed as follows:

Community Housing Limited undertook the inaugural contract of Property Management
for CGT, and were shortly replaced by Rock Property on an interim basis. Rock
Property were successful in a tender to CGT in November 2013 to continue contracting
property management services to CGT until 2016.
CGT property management is
currently undertaken by one property manager who works at each (Barrack and
Campbell street) site one day per week. The property management role includes
allocating properties to AHTs, attending management meetings to discuss (new, ongoing, exiting) tenancy issues, providing support to new and on-going tenants
regarding property/tenancy rights, responsibilities, problems or issues, and managing
all tenant property leases.
31

Anglicare won the contract to provide support services to CGT with negotiations
commencing in February 2012 and service provision commencing in June 2012. At
the peak of their service provision, Anglicare provided one manager plus four staff as
support to CGT STs. Support staff were introduced over time as required in accord
with the filling of vacancies at each site, at a ratio of 1:10 (one support staff per 10
STs). Anglicare exited CGT as support providers on 30 September 2013.

DCM Security Services were contracted by CGT to provide night-time security and
day-time concierge services to the two CGT facilities. Five staff were employed at each
site to undertake 24-hour security, including managing the front desk (concierge),
CCTV system and building security. Changes to the contracting arrangements with
DCM during November 2013 mean that DCM security will reduce their services to CGT
over a three-month period, continuing in 2014 with one security officer employed per
site during a night shift.
For CGT management staff, there were two initial service implementation priorities:
implementing the activities of the three contracted services (tenancy, support and security) in
a collaborative working relationship toward the common goal of providing supportive housing
to tenants; and filling residential vacancies with new tenants. The latter was staged, with two
STs moving in within the first two weeks of opening, progressing to four per month over the
following months. CGT intentionally staged the process due to the need to intensively support
new tenants over the first three months, and ensure the sustainability of both the support staff
and existing tenants throughout periods of new tenancies. Service changes in relation to
concierge and support services created delays in the occupancy process from October 2013
with the termination of service provision by Anglicare on 30 September 2013. CGT
management made the decision to delay the allocation of new properties to STs until new
support staff were in place and the service was once again fully operational.
At end
December 2013, 30 STs occupied units, and at end March 2014, 42 STs occupied CGT units.
Reasons cited for the exit of Anglicare support services to CGT pivot around the absence of a
Funding Agreement between the two organisations through which to specify Key Performance
Indicators (KPIs) for the provision of support services. While the Agreement was drafted in
multiple stages between the organisations, no final contract was agreed. This proved a barrier
to continued collaboration between the two organisations. The absence of a Funding
Agreement prevented the establishment of a workable service framework for support practices
and client outcomes to which both parties could commit. As a consequence, a lack of clarity
existed around agreed approaches to homelessness support, and procedures for the transfer
of data and tenant information between CGT and Anglicare. In addition, there were concerns
32
within both parties about how each organisation approached tenant privacy and duty of care
toward STs.
These factors contributed towards breakdowns in staff communication and tensions over
funding and security of staff tenure. For example, Anglicare felt that the funding arrangement
was inequitable. Their experience is that contractors are provided with a sum of money to
deliver services, with any unused funds returned to the funder. In CGT’s case, Anglicare paid
their own staff for the delivery of services and were re-reimbursed from CGT by invoice. In
some cases, Anglicare increased staff according to their support worker: tenant ratio.
Disputes over invoices arose when ST numbers fluctuated (for example, lowered), creating
insecurity of tenure for Anglicare staff and a degree of financial risk for the service. These
disagreements eventually led to Anglicare withdrawing the provision of support services to
CGT’s supported tenants effective on 30 September 2013. To address this, CGT moved to a
model of direct service provision, as outlined below.
CGT and DCM Security Services arrived at a mutual agreement in November 2013 to
decrease the provision of services at the CGT premises to night-time security because of
CGT’s management view that the concierge role is to a greater degree a hospitality, rather
than security, role. Although DCM provides concierge and security services, their core
business is security, not hospitality services. DCM security services agreed to stage their
withdrawal of services with the exception of two security staff during the midnight to 8am shift
at both sites. This would allow CGT to improve their concierge model. In the interim, CGT
have directly employed concierge and night-time security staff with an emphasis on concierge
and hospitality duties.
The model introduced by CGT management following these changes is one of direct
concierge and support service provision. CGT is employing a team-based approach to
support, drawing upon expertise across a range of professional backgrounds and employment
histories. For example support co-ordinators include a psychologist, social worker,
occupational therapist and personnel with case management skills from different sectors,
including the justice system.
33
Box 2: Key Common Ground Tasmania Personnel (as at Feb 2014)

Management: The Managing Director was appointed in October 2009 followed by the
Operations Manager in May 2012. Together they oversee operational activities at the
facilities, including HR, finance, security and tenancy issues, and building operations.
In making these appointments the CGT board sought to employ senior management
staff with corporate and business acumen rather than sector experience because of its
commitment to a model of service provision that emphasised normalisation of housing
provision and sustainable business practices. The knowledge of the homelessness
sector was understood as being provided through the contracted support services.

Support service manager. This fractional appointment provides the co-ordination of
support services to all CGT tenants, performance management and support of the
support co-ordinators, and the development of health interventions for tenants.

Five support co-ordinators (including fractional and full-time staff). Three senior
support co-ordinators provide support services and intervention to tenants, mentor
support co-ordinators and manage data reporting requirements. Two support coordinators provide on-going support to tenants, including the co-ordination of access to
external supports for CGT tenants. As with the Anglicare arrangement, support staff
recruitment is based on the staff to ST ratio of 1:10 (one support staff member per ten
STs).

Tenancy Manager (Rock Property). The allocation of all AHTs to CGT properties is
undertaken by Rock Property. The Tenancy Manager fields queries from potential
AHT’s directly, checks their eligibility based on NRAS income limits, and allocates
properties if mutual suitability is determined by Rock Property and the potential AHT.

From January 2014, concierge staff comprise two security officers employed directly
by CGT at each site during the 8am-4pm and 4pm to midnight shifts. DCM Security
Services continue to provide one security officer per site for the midnight – 8am shift.
The concierge staff are employed as part of the support team, including front desk and
on-site recreational activities. Concierge staff also undertake cleaning of all common
areas.
34
Common Ground Tasmania Service Provision Processes: Eligibility, Allocation and
Tenant Support
Clients present to CGT by referral through a range of sources including Housing Connect,
which is currently the ‘front door’ for all clients presenting for housing needs in Tasmania.
Allocation targets are established by the Funding Agreement as stipulated in section 3.1.
Box 3: Housing Connect
The current Tasmanian Homelessness Implementation Plan (2009-2014) includes reforms
aimed at establishing a more responsive, sustainable and integrated affordable housing
system whose goal is to improve client outcomes through easier access, earlier identification
and intervention and more targeted support and accommodation assistance.
‘Housing Connect’ commenced implementation in July 2013 and provides two core services.
Type 1 is a housing and homelessness ‘front door’ that provides centralised access points for
immediate, integrated assistance, assessment and intake of all client housing needs and
services at a single location rather than through multiple services. For homeless clients this
incorporates streamlined early intervention brokerage, prioritised for those experiencing
primary homelessness or violence or with complex needs. The aim is to provide a
collaborative, integrated and partnership approach to homelessness between service
providers including team meetings, case planning, referrals and policy development.
Type 2 services provide specialist support for clients based on a three-tiered (low intensity,
high intensity and variable intensity/long duration) system of needs identification and service
provision (Housing Connect 2013).
For example, Housing Connect policy includes client
profiling and matching to suitable accommodation, providing the client with a plan that
includes priority ratings (based on urgency, duration and severity of need) and identification of
homelessness risk. Each client referral is allocated a specific timeframe by which service
providers will need to respond (Housing Connect 2013).
Although CGT have the final decision on who will be offered a vacancy, initial referral
assessments and recommendations are undertaken by other service providers from within the
housing and homelessness sector. The Vulnerability Index survey is completed by referring
service providers upon request by CGT. The assessment procedures were developed in
consultation with Anglicare who, until March 2013, were also involved in assessment
35
recommendations with CGT. This changed with CGT’s employment of a consultant
psychologist to undertake intake assessments in collaboration with CGT, including
researching client history and making allocation recommendations to CGT. This role was
brought directly into the service from May 2013 with the consultant’s employment as the
Practice Manager (now titled Support Services Manager) with responsibility for allocation
assessments. With the implementation of Housing Connect in October 2013, allocations
decisions are now made in meetings convened on a needs basis, comprising the CGT
Support Services Manager, Operations Manager, Managing Director and Housing Connect
Manager (Colony 47). Figure provides a summary of the CGT allocations process.
When Housing Connect refers a potential tenant to CGT, the Operations Manager conducts
an initial eligibility check. This includes addressing issues such as the person’s status as
chronically homeless and their suitability to live at the CGT facilities, including ability to live
independently, and in a community. For example, individuals with a criminal record for sexual
assault, arson and/or physical violence are excluded from eligibility.
If the individual is deemed ineligible through this initial assessment, the person is referred
back to Housing Connect for alternative accommodation. If the person is deemed provisionally
eligible, a Vulnerability Index (VI) survey is undertaken by the referring service provider, who
is trained in how to complete a Vulnerability Index survey, to ascertain level of client need
(based on 1-5 index, 5 being highest need). The Vulnerability Index survey is based on
research (Hwang et. al 1998) identifying factors associated with increased risk of death
amongst the chronically homeless. It is a health-based indicator only, and in Tasmania is
used exclusively by CGT as an intake assessment tool for supportive accommodation
eligibility. Upon completion of the Vulnerability Index survey, the referring service provider is
emailed with advice of whether the person’s eligibility is prioritised or not prioritised.
If
prioritised, the Support Services Manager prepares a formal assessment in full written report
style addressing four key eligibility criteria:
1. Eligibility as ‘chronically homeless’
2. Identification and assessment of needs and circumstances relevant to the CGT
supporting housing model
3. Fit with current CGT tenant profile and community environment (including no children
or pets)
4. Capacity to sustain a CGT tenancy.
This full report includes a thorough investigation into the individual’s health and therapeutic
support history. Along with the Vulnerability Index survey results, it provides the basis for the
acceptance or rejection of applications in allocations meetings between CGT and the Housing
36
Connect Manager. This panel meets when required, having received and familiarised
themselves with the eligibility reports for discussion. Decisions are made by allocating
tenancies to the highest need individual, based on the individuals Vulnerability Index score
(rating 5 given highest priority) and meeting the other criteria for eligibility. Rejections are
referred back to Housing Connect for an alternative route to suitable housing, and referring
support workers are advised of the outcome. A letter may be provided if requested. In each
case, the panel determines who is the most appropriate person to convey the offer (or
otherwise) to the person. In most cases this is the referring support worker as they have a
relationship with the homeless person and are also more likely to be exploring housing options
with the person. Individuals accepted at CGT are contacted and allocated a suitable property
at one of the CGT facilities. At this time the lease process is initiated by the Tenancy Manager
(Rock Property). From first referral, the allocation process takes from four to six weeks.
Examples of eligibility criteria for Common Ground New York, Common Ground Adelaide and
Common Ground Camperdown (Sydney) are provided in Appendix A.
Figure 3-1: Summary of Eligibility process for ST allocation at CGT
Initial eligibility
assessment
(CGT Operations
Manager)
Decision-making
Request to complete VI
survey
Completion of full
investigative report
(CGT management and
Housing Connect
manager)
Upon allocation and acceptance into the CGT facility, tenants are supported to transition to
their own furnished apartments, stocked with all tenant requirements include one week’s
supply of food. The tenancy manager has one (or more, based on need) meeting/s with the
ST to make sure the property lease is signed with adequate understanding of the rights and
responsibilities associated with the lease. The tenant is also provided with support regarding
the payment of the bond and rent, which may include facilitating direct debit payments. ST
37
rent is calculated on 25 per cent of income for a studio apartment (ranging between $135 and
$160 per week) and 30 per cent of income for a 1-bedroom unit (approx. $180 per week).19
While the support needs of tenants are first assessed during the intake assessment process,
support staff give tenants one week to settle in before encouraging them to participate in the
development of a case management plan. Unlike other SAF’s, CGT does not categorise STs
according to low, medium, or high/complex needs, stating that these categories are continually
subject to fluctuation based on tenant circumstance.
Currently, when supporting tenants, support co-ordinators utilise a range of tools and
resources according to the needs of the ST. Subsequent to service changes to support
provision with the exit of Anglicare, CGT are in the process of finalising the CGT Practice
Model, which is in draft form and will be provided to DHHS once complete. The preferred tools
and resources will be outlined in the final document. While tenants are assisted to understand
that support is a key element in successful outcomes at CGT, the acceptance of support is not
a condition of the tenancy.
Support co-ordinators are available onsite at both CGT facilities during business hours. Two
senior support co-ordinators are also on call after hours, on a rotating monthly basis, to
respond to queries from a concierge should they arise. The support co-ordinator encourages
the tenant to engage in on-going contact and regular communication with a range of support
co-ordinators. The regularity of engagement with support co-ordinators is driven by the tenant,
and may occur daily, a number of times per week, weekly, fortnightly, or monthly. Contact with
support co-ordinators may be informal, over an ad-hoc conversation in the common room, or
through more formal conversations where the tenant case management plan is discussed or
assessed. Services provided by support co-ordinators include counselling, problem solving
and assistance with daily personal issues (for example, domestic help, shopping, finance and
budgets), assistance in identifying health issues and risks, and linking tenants with external
support services (for example, GP, dentist, optometry, Drug and Alcohol intervention
programs). Support co-ordinators also encourage tenants to make social connections, and reconnect with their families, and in relevant cases increase tenant capacity to engage in
education, training, or skills upgrading through volunteer work.
After having been placed in accommodation clients may exit the program by choice. It is also
possible for a tenant to be evicted should he/she fail to meet the conditions of his/her tenancy
agreement or (where specific legal conditions are breached) a resident is obligated to return to
a custodial setting. CGT policy regarding CGT tenant exits is that no tenant will exit back into
19
AHT rentals range from $175 per week for studio apartments, up to $290 per week for a 1-bedroom unit.
38
homelessness. All STs are in principle supported throughout their housing transition, and
should a tenant who has not achieved adequate levels of independence choose to leave CGT,
the tenant is provided with appropriate supports and referrals to access alternative social
housing20.
Box 4: CGT Service Principles
As the CGT service has evolved a number of service principles and practices
have been established. These include:

Tenant access to a range of professional expertise amongst the support coordinators by CGT in order to reduce the potential for dependence on a single
worker and to encourage tenants to draw on a range of skills and professional
expertise.

An emphasis on the treatment of supported residents as tenants rather than
clients as part of a service philosophy that the most effective way to assist
tenants to sustain their tenancies is through support towards normalised and
independent living.

The use of provisional, 3-month leases, prior to signing of a 12-month lease.
This reflects concerns within the organisation that the first 3-4 months of
supported tenancies are the most precarious, with the potential for
unaccustomed challenges for new and existing tenants. The provisional lease
provides a mechanism for tenants and CGT to terminate tenancies should
they be viewed as unsuitable.
In summary, the implementation of CGT service operations has been characterised by an
evolution of governance, service and staff arrangements. Changes to contracted support and
security services have been replaced by the more recent establishment of CGT as manager of
support and concierge services at the facilities, including the direct employment of CGT staff
to these roles. Similarly, eligibility criteria, allocations procedures and support practice models
have evolved in accordance with governance, service and staff changes at CGT, as well as
changes in the broader housing sector. A number of these implementation processes are still
undergoing full implementation.
20
Since the completion of this report, CGT have advised that they have implemented a transition plan for all
exiting STs. They are offered up to three months of outreach support after the termination of their CGT tenancy.
39
4 Evaluation of Service Provision and Outputs
In Section 4 we describe and evaluate the service outputs of CGT between commencement
and 30 June 2013. We begin with a description of the Common Ground service levels and
then review client demographics, client presenting circumstances, services provided, and
client related outputs. The evaluation of service outputs is assessed within the context of the
conditions set out in the Funding Agreement and Residential Management Agreement
including the description of the concept of ‘supportive housing’. These conditions include the
provision of effective assessment and allocation procedures designed to provide services to
those with the greatest needs and risk of homelessness, the provision of processes that
support residents to sustain their tenancies, and the provision of processes to ensure that
clients improve their independent living skills and realise their potential for community
participation to a greater extent.
4.1
Service Activities Specified
CGT’s two main activities - those that pertain to the social supports provided to tenants and
occupants accepted into the program, and those that pertain to the management of the
accommodation facilities and tenancy agreements established with clients - are described in
the Funding Agreement governing the program. The facility management role is specified in
two separate Residential Management Agreements that accompany the Funding Agreement.
The Residential Management Agreements specify, amongst other things, the conditions and
parameters CGT shall meet as the manager of the facilities allocated to the program. Two of
the parameters set out in the Residential Management Agreements are of particular
importance to understanding the main characteristics of the Common Ground service model in
Tasmania.
First, clients who use the service must meet eligibility requirements that reflect aspects of
Housing Tasmania’s ‘Housing Assessment System’ pertaining to income and asset limits,
clients must be assessed against a ‘Vulnerability Index’, and clients must sign a residential
tenancy agreement and pay rent 21 . These features make access to CGT’s services
conditional.
21
The definition of such an agreement is set out in the Residential Tenancy Act 1997 with additional conditions
stated in attachments to the RMA.
40
Second, the Residential Management Agreements set out conditions that permit CGT to use
any income it earns from operating the facilities to acquire or develop additional property to
meet the objectives of the program. Income includes rental income received from residential
tenants and money paid in return for the use of car parking facilities22. Consequently, the
CGT model, unlike other supported accommodation models established in Tasmania, includes
provision to grow the size and scope of the amenities available for use by eligible clients.
In addition to the separation of facility management and support services the CGT model also
distinguishes between two categories of eligible clients: those who were homeless in the
period before entering the program and those who were not homeless but could not access
‘affordable’ residential housing. Eligibility criteria are outlined in section 3.2.
4.1.1 Service Activities Specified in the Funding Agreement and Residential
Management Agreements
The activities specified in the service contracts can be organised into three areas:
1. Residential management of the facilities including establishing tenancy agreements with
eligible clients to support them to achieve the objectives of the program.
2. Monitoring and reporting including implementing strategic plans, performance monitoring
and reporting processes, administrative and financial documentation, and electronic
information management systems to guide service delivery in pursuit of program
objectives.
3. Client support service provision, either directly or through a third party including intake
screening assessments, case management planning, referrals to allied social, legal, health
and medical services and exit planning.
4.1.2 Performance Measurement of Service Activity
According to the service specification contained in the Funding Agreement the performance
standard of the activities undertaken in the CGT service, including any progress made by
clients, are monitored by seven groups of compliance based performance indicators. The
measures of each indicator are categorical and the Funding Agreement specifies that all
relevant contracted organisations must demonstrate they comply with each indicator.
In addition to demonstrating compliance with the performance requirements the CGT
Agreement requires contracted organisations to provide periodic reports to a state government
22
RMA Section 6.2(c).
41
agency on continuous quality improvement activities they may undertake. In effect this
requirement entails reporting on serious consumer related incidents (SAC1 and SAC223) that
might occur during the normal operation of the service. The service activity performance
indicators are listed in Table 2, Appendix E.
4.1.3 Description of the characteristics of the personnel identified to undertake
the activities
The Funding Agreement requires that employees, sub-contractors, or volunteers possess
appropriate qualifications and skills, are provided with adequate support to deliver the
specified services, and are ‘fit and proper persons’ to conduct the activities experienced by
clients who may participate in the service. The agreement defines the attributes of a fit and
proper person as a person:

Capable of providing an adequate standard of care in relation to the Services;

Who understands the needs of clients and their children; and,

Is of good character and is suitable to be entrusted with the care of clients.
The agreement then ties this definition to a stipulation that the funded organisation is satisfied
that any person engaged in the provision of services under the agreement is a fit and proper
person. In particular, the agreement asks the organisation to determine whether a person has
convictions for any offence involving children or any action taken with regard to their
guardianship or custody of a child by obtaining a police history record and by checking
personal references supplied by an employee.
The agreement does not specify a minimum level of certification on the qualifications
appropriate to the service activities included in the agreement or make reference to the
governing laws or professional standards applicable to the services to be delivered.
4.1.4 Description of Service Levels
Service activity levels for CGT are reported to the AIHW under the Specialist Homelessness
Services (SHS) data collection agreement. The main data elements included in the SHS
collection include: a descriptive statistical summary of various service outputs derivative of the
SAAP data collection including the number of clients assisted, the number of closed and ongoing support periods, the average duration of support periods measured in days, and the
number of support periods involving the provision of accommodation.
23
Severity Assessment Code levels 1 and 2 of four SAC levels.
42
Demographic data are also reported in the SHS collection including the age and sex of clients,
client Indigenous status, mental health status, income source, the length of time since the
client last had permanent accommodation, clients’ presenting region and referral pathway,
clients’ reason for seeking assistance, and the number of times clients had experienced
homelessness.
The data collection process that informs the SHS collection requires service providers to
transmit activity data to the AIHW, who then analyse and publish reports for consumption by
the service sector and by State Housing Authorities.
In addition to the SHS collection the information described in this section draws on:

CGT’s Annual Reports;

CGT’s report submissions to Housing Tasmania in partial fulfilment of its reporting
requirements for the periods January 2013 to June 2013, July 2012 to July 2013, and 1
June 2012 to 30 May 2013;

Anglicare Tasmania service data for periods to 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2013;

Information gathered via survey of STs and AHT’s (n=61) in support of AHURI
research on supportive housing in Australia in May and October 2013; and,

Summary analysis of an initial survey conducted by UTas School of Medicine staff on
behalf of CGT during 2012-2013. The survey was conducted in March 2013, and
involved 23 STs. A follow-up survey was conducted in November 2013, however the
results were not yet available for integration into this report.
The SHS activity reports available at the time of writing indicate that 81 clients entered the
CGT facilities during 2012-2013 recording a total of 90 support periods (see Table 4-1).
According to CGT’s Service Delivery report, at 30 June 2013 there were 85 clients occupying
a total of 75 of the 97 units available (~77%). Between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2013
Anglicare reports there were nine supported tenancy vacations.
43
Table 4-1: Common Ground Tasmania Summary data
CGT Summary Data
Total number closed support periods
Total number ongoing support periods
Number of support periods with no client information
Number of clients (excluding those with no client data)
Number of support days provided in year
Total length of support periods closed during year
Number of Support Periods for children
Number of children
Male
Female
Aboriginal (or Torres Strait Islander)
Neither Aboriginal nor Torres Strait Islander
Ever diagnosed with mental health condition
2012-2013*
57
33
7
81
10379
4672
0
0
55
26
6
34
19
*Campbell Street facility commences Jan 2013
Data Source: SHS
Figure 4-1 shows the number of supported tenancies for each facility since July 2012,
according to the data available. This is monthly to June 2013, with further snapshots at
December 2013 and March 2014. The tenancy split between Barrack Street and Campbell
Street was not available for the 31 March 2014 data collection point.
Figure 4-1: Total Supported Tenancies July 2012-March 2014
*Sources: Anglicare Common Ground Support Services Report January – June 2013; CGT reporting December 2013March 2014.
Note: Occupancy comparison assumes one tenant per unit. Figures reporting the number of tenancies after 30 June
2013 may not distinguish between a count of the number of occupied units and the number of occupants in all cases.
We assume an occupied unit equals one tenancy agreement.
44
Six months after opening, Barrack Street supported tenancies had reached 21 tenancies and
were steady until February 2013 but then decreased from 22 to 14 tenancies by June 2013.
For Campbell Street, six months after opening, at June 2013, supported tenancies were at 17
tenancies, dropping to 16 in December 2013.
Figure 4-1 and Table 4-2 show that across both facilities, between February and December
2013, supported tenant occupancies were between 30 and 31 (of the available 39 ST units),
which is just over 30 per cent of the total units. This increased to 42 tenancies by 31 March
2014, or 43.3 per cent of the total units.
Table 4-2: Proportion of Occupied Units
Occupancy and Vacations
Total Units
Total Units Occupied
Proportion of units occupied
Occupancy split
Lease Vacations
As at 30 Jun 2013 1
As at 31 Dec 2013 2
As at 31 March 2014 2
AHT
ST
Total
AHT
ST
Total
AHT
ST
Total
58
39
97
58
39
97
58
39
97
43
31
74
34
30
64
39
42
81
44.3%
32.0%
76.3%
35.1%
30.9%
66.0%
40.2%
43.3%
83.5%
58.1%
41.9%
100%
53.1%
46.9%
100%
48.1%
51.9%
100%
3
9
12*
n.p.
16
16^
n.p.
2
2~
* Between 1 Ja nua ry a nd 30 June 2013
^ Between 1 Ja nua ry a nd 31 December 2013
~ Between 1 Ja nua ry a nd 31 Ma rch 2014
n.p. = not provi ded
1
Angl i ca re da ta
2
CGT da ta
Note: Figures reporting the number of tenancies after 30 June 2013 may not distinguish between a count of the
number of occupied units and the number of occupants in all cases. We assume an occupied unit equals one
tenancy agreement.
Figure 4-2 describes the number of Affordable Housing Tenancies at the end of the fourth
quarter 2012-2013, and at the end of the second and third quarters 2013-2014. The number
of tenancies at the end of the first, second, and third quarters of 2012-2013, the first quarter
2013-2014, and the split between facilities was not available. Figure 4-2 and Table 4-2 show
that affordable housing tenancies were at 43 occupancies or 44.3 per cent of total units at 30
June 2013, declining to 34 occupancies at 31 December 2013 and increasing to 39
occupancies at 31 March 2014 or 40.2 per cent of total units.
45
Figure 4-2: Total Affordable Housing Tenants by Quarter
Source: CGT reporting.
Note: Occupancy comparison assumes one tenant per unit. Figures reporting the number of tenancies may not distinguish
between a count of the number of occupied units and the number of occupants in all cases. We assume an occupied unit equals
one tenancy agreement.
Table 4-2 and Figure 4-3 shows that at 30 June 2013, occupancy levels for the units overall
were 76.3 per cent, leaving 23 units vacant across all facilities and well below the target of 95
per cent occupancy. By December 2013, occupancy overall had declined to 66 per cent, with
33 units vacant. By 31 March 2014 occupancy levels had increased to 83.5 per cent with 16
units vacant. These low occupancy rates are a concern because they impact on the financial
viability of the service as a whole.
46
Figure 4-3: Total Tenancies June 2013-March 2014
Sources: Anglicare Common Ground Support Services Report January – June 2013; CGT reporting December 2013March 2014.
Note: Occupancy comparison assumes one tenant per unit. For supported tenancies, figures reporting the number of
tenancies after 30 June 2013 may not distinguish between a count of the number of occupied units and the number of
occupants in all cases. We assume an occupied unit equals one tenancy agreement.
We note that reports by CGT and Anglicare on the number of occupants in each facility and
the number of lease vacations were not consistent.
Figures describing the actual rents raised and paid to CGT for the period have not been made
available. However, the CGT Annual Report 2011-2012 states that approximately $42,000 of
rental income was received during 2011-2012. It is reasonable to expect this figure to have
increased during 2012-2013.
4.1.5 Client demographic profile
The Funding Agreement includes a description of the target client group and the level of need
they should display to be eligible for entry into the program. To be eligible for entry, clients
must be:

able to live independently,

registered on the Housing Tasmania wait list,

an Australian citizen and Tasmanian resident,

18 years or older,
47

Meet the financial asset limits specified by Housing Tasmania’s Housing Assessment
System (HAS).
The sex ratio of clients accepted into the program was approximately 68 per cent male to 32
per cent female. Approximately 7 per cent of clients identified as either Aboriginal or Torres
Strait Islander.
The distribution of ages of clients entering Common Ground ranges from 18 to 64 years.
Approximately 65 per cent of clients were aged between 30 and 49 years (see Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4: Age distribution of clients
Data Source: SHS
Table 4-3 shows that during 2012-2013 clients’ main source of income in the week before
service (where a support period was recorded) was either a disability support pension or
Newstart allowance. A substantial number of clients were recorded with an unknown income
source in the week before presenting for service.
48
Table 4-3: Main source of income
Main source of income
Newstart Allowance
Disability Support Pension (Centrelink)
Carer Allowance
Employee Income
Unknown
Total
Week before
9
31
1
1
48
90
2012-2013*
Closed SP
4
14
0
0
39
57
Ongoing SP
7
25
1
0
0
33
*Campbell Street facility commenced Jan 2013
Data Source: SHS
4.1.6 Client Presenting Circumstances
The most common referral source for clients entering the CGT service was a specialist
homelessness or outreach agency (see Table 4-4).
Table 4-4: Referral source
Referral Source (CGT)
Specialist Homelessness Agency/Outreach
Unknown
Other
Hospital
Mental Health Service
No Formal Referral
Social Housing
Total
2012-2013*
80.0%
6.7%
5.6%
2.2%
2.2%
2.2%
1.1%
100%
*Campbell Street facility commenced Jan 2013
Data Source: SHS
Table 4-5 shows that the living arrangements experienced by clients in the week before
entering the Common Ground service and when presenting to the service in 2012-2013 was
for the most part unrecorded in the SHS collection (~58-60%). Of clients who recorded at least
one support period, the largest proportion were living by themselves in the week before and
on the day of presentation for service (>34%). Approximately 4 per cent of clients presenting
for service were couples without children and a small proportion were living with family or with
an unrelated group of adults.
49
Table 4-5: Living arrangements before program entry
2012-2013
week before
when presenting
58.9%
57.8%
34.4%
36.7%
4.4%
4.4%
2.2%
1.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
100%
Living Arrangements before program entry
Unknown
Lone person
Couple without child(ren)
Group
One parent with child(ren)
Couple with child(ren)
Other family
Total
Data Source: SHS
Table 4-6 details the accommodation circumstances of clients prior to entering the program
during 2012-2013. Approximately one third of clients entering during the year were either
sleeping rough or in improvised accommodation (~27% at Campbell Street and ~35% at
Barrack Street) in the month before entering the program. Approximately 14 per cent of clients
stated they were living in emergency or short-term accommodation in the month before entry
to the service and less than 10 per cent of clients stated they were not homeless in the month
before entry to the service facility. However, the SHS records also show that approximately
half of client interactions at the beginning of a support period did not record a response on this
attribute.
Table 4-6: Whether homeless in month before support
Whether homeless in month before support
2012-2013
Campbell Street
Barrack Street
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
8
27.6%
23
35.4%
4
13.8%
9
13.8%
Not homeless
2
6.9%
3
4.6%
Unknown
15
51.7%
30
46.2%
Total Support Periods
29
100%
65
100%
Sleeping rough or in non-conventional
accommodation
Short term or emergency accommodation
due to lack of options
Data Source: SHS
50
When asked about the length of time since they last had permanent tenure, approximately 65
per cent of responses across the two facilities were unknown (see Table 4-7). 13 per cent of
clients stated that they had not accessed permanent tenure for between 12 months and up to
five years prior to presentation to the Common Ground service. Almost one third of clients who
recorded a support period during 2012-2013 stated they had not experienced permanent
tenure between one week and one year before entering the program24.
Table 4-7: Time since last permanent tenure
Time Since Last Permanent Address
Less than 1 week ago
1 week to 1 month ago
More than 1 month to 6 months ago
More than 6 months to 1 year ago
More than 1 year to 5 years ago
Don't know
Not applicable
Total
2012-2013
Campbell Street
Barrack Street
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
0
0.0%
1
1.6%
1
3.4%
3
4.9%
0
0.0%
3
4.9%
0
0.0%
7
11.5%
5
17.2%
7
11.5%
21
72.4%
38
62.3%
2
6.9%
2
3.3%
29
100%
61
100%
Data Source: SHS
Figure 4-5 indicates the most common reasons for seeking assistance from CGT in the month
before entering the service were inadequate or inappropriate dwelling conditions and mental
health issues respectively. However, a significant proportion of responses were recorded as
unknown. For Campbell Street this was just over half of respondents. For Barrack Street it
was nearly 40 per cent.
24
None of the data made available to the evaluation indicated the extent to which clients had sought entry to
other social housing services or supportive accommodation services funded under the NPAH.
51
Figure 4-5: Main reason for seeking assistance
Data Source: SHS
According to the School of Medicine Survey, the range of ages at which STs first experienced
homelessness ranged from 11 years to 50 years with approximately 50 per cent of surveyed
clients stating they were first homeless under the age of 20 years. Although the number of
respondents is not provided, the report states that respondents stated they had changed
location five times on average in the six months prior to entering Common Ground.
Approximately 21 per cent of all clients who commenced a support period during 2012-13 had
been diagnosed with a mental illness (see Table 4-8). Approximately half of these (~12% of
total respondents) were in receipt of a mental health service or had been in receipt of a mental
health service in the 12 months prior to the start of a support period.
The School of Medicine survey indicates that common diagnoses reported by STs who
experienced recent episodes of hospitalisation (~57% of 21 respondents) included generalised
anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and psychosis. Approximately 80 per cent
of these clients are taking medication related to their mental health condition and compared
with 6 months previously almost 60 per cent rate their mental health as somewhat or much,
better. Almost 80 per cent stated they were on the way to recovery from their mental health
problems. 36 per cent stated they would like additional mental health assistance, such as
referrals to a psychiatrist or counsellor.
52
Table 4-8: Ever diagnosed with mental health condition
2012-2013
Ever Diagnosed with Mental Health Condition
Campbell Street
Yes
No
Don't know
Not applicable
Total
In receipt of mental health services (%)
Received mental health service in last 12 months
(%)
Received mental health services more than 12
months ago (%)
Barrack Street
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
7
2
19
1
29
24.1%
6.9%
65.5%
3.4%
100%
12
1
14
34
61
19.7%
1.6%
23.0%
55.7%
100%
3.4%
8.2%
10.3%
3.3%
0.0%
1.6%
Data Source: SHS
The School of Medicine survey found that respondents presented with significant physical,
mobility, dental, and visual/hearing problems. Approximately 73 per cent of respondents had
dental problems, 36 per cent reported problems with their vision, 35 per cent reported hearing
problems, and 48 per cent reported experiencing difficulty with mobility. The most common
physical disorders included migraine headaches, asthma or bronchitis, hepatitis C, and
gastrointestinal disorders.
It should be noted that in data related to client presenting circumstances, high percentages
(from 37 per cent up to 65 per cent) of ‘unknown’ responses are indicated in most measures,
including ‘ever diagnosed with a mental health condition’. The high levels of ‘unknown’
responses result in key gaps in performance standard indicators.
4.1.7 Services Provided
Figure 4-6 describes the top ten service needs of clients at the Campbell Street and Barrack
Street facilities during 2012-2013. The most common need was assistance with basic living
skills. However, a greater proportion of clients at the Barrack Street facility stated a need for
health and medical support including access to mental health services than clients at the
Campbell street facility. Clients at the Campbell Street facility recorded a greater need for
outreach and assistance to maintain their tenancy than those receiving services at the Barrack
Street facility.25
25
By way of comparison, the Northern SAF’s top need indicated by Grove House residents is ‘long-term housing’
and Thyne House residents top need is ‘assistance to sustain tenancies’. Thistle street residents indicated both
these needs in their top ten needs. AT CGT, housing needs, particularly by Barrack street respondents, were low
on the service needs cited by CGT tenants.
53
Figure 4-6: Top ten services needed by clients
Data Source: SHS
Data for 2012 and 2013 suggests there were almost no cases where service needs were
identified but not provided (<1% of all needs identified).
Anglicare reports that between 1 January and 30 June 2013 it provided an average of 15.4
hours of casework support per client at the Campbell Street facility (n = 19) and 14.1 hours of
case work support per client at the Barrack Street facility (n = 26).
According to Anglicare, support contacts with STs during this period took place via personal
meetings at least once per week. Table 4-9 presents the top four types of contact recorded by
Anglicare with STs between 1 January and 30 June 2013.
54
Table 4-9: Type of contact
Number of ST Client Contacts by Type
Case Coordination
Phone
Client Meetings
Appointments
Total
Campbell Street*
Number
Percent
370
36.8%
320
31.8%
164
16.3%
151
15.0%
1005
100%
Barrack Street*
Number
Percent
393
36.7%
393
36.7%
195
18.2%
89
8.3%
1070
100%
*1 January 2013 - 30 June 2013
Data Source: Anglicare
Table 4-10 shows that the most common reason a support period ended in 2012-2013 was
the client no longer requested assistance (~30%, n=17), followed by the response of ‘other’ (or
reasons unknown; ~28%, n=16). Support periods also ended when clients were referred to
another specialist homelessness agency (~26%, n=15) or because the maximum service
period26 had been reached (~5%, n=3). In a small number of cases client support periods
ended when a client was incarcerated or died27.
Table 4-10: Reason support period ended
Reason Support Period Ended
2012-2013
Campbell Street
Barrack Street
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Client no longer requested assistance
Other
3
3
27.3%
27.3%
14
13
30.4%
28.3%
Maximum service period reached
3
27.3%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
15
32.6%
1
9.1%
0
0.0%
Lost contact with client
1
9.1%
0
0.0%
Client incarcerated
0
0.0%
2
4.3%
Client died
0
0.0%
2
4.3%
Total
11
100%
46
100%
Client referred to another specialist
homelessness agency
Clients immediate needs met/case management
goals achieved
Data Source: SHS
According to reporting by Anglicare, 9 STs exited Common Ground services between 1
January and 30 June 2013 (see Table 4-11).
26
Maximum Service Period is a term used in the SHS collection, and refers to the limit on the time made
available for case management to ST’s under the service provision agreement.
27
Note that clients can record more than one support period in a reporting period and record more than one
reason for ending a support period.
55
Table 4-11: Supported tenancy vacations
Moved to Private Rental
Move from Barrack to Campbell
Eviction due to behaviour
Client Incarcerated - Eviction due
to rent arrears
Client Deceased
Client Abandoned
Total
*Data Source = Anglicare reporting
^Data Source = CGT reporting
1 Jan 2013 to 30 Jun 2013* 1 Jan 2013 to 31 Dec 2013^ 1 Jan 2014 to 31 Mar 2014^
2
8
2
1
0
0
3
4
0
1
0
0
2
0
9
2
2
16
0
0
2
Anglicare state that the three tenancy vacations related to behavioural issues resulted in the
clients exiting the service without having secured alternative tenure28.
According to additional vacation figures provided by CGT, during the twelve months to 31
December 2013, 16 clients vacated their dwelling. Half of these clients left to take up private
rental, two were deceased, and six were evicted or abandoned their tenancy. Between 1
January 2014 and 31 March 2014 CGT reports that an additional two clients had vacated their
dwellings and moved into private rental.
4.1.8 Level of attainment measured
Data supplied to the AIHW regarding the extent to which the goals identified in case
management plans were achieved shows that of the 11 closed support periods recorded for
the Campbell Street facility in 2012-2013, 9 (~82%) ended with no case management plan,
one (~9%) ended without achieving any of the goals identified in the client’s case
management plan, and one (~9%) ended with up to half of the case management goals
achieved (see Table 4-12). At the Barrack Street facility, of the 46 closed support periods
recorded in 2012-2013, 35 (~76%) ended with no case management plan, two (~4%) ended
without achieving any of the goals identified in the client’s case management plan, and nine
(~20%) support periods closed with clients achieving up to half or more of their case
management plan.
However, of the 18 support periods on-going at 30 June 2013 at the Campbell Street facility,
13 (~72%) had achieved up to half of the goals planned. At the Barrack Street facility 11 of the
15 on-going support periods (~73%) had achieved up to half of the goals planned. According
to the SHS data collection no clients had achieved all the goals identified in their case
management plan during 2012-2013.
28
Anglicare Common Ground Support Services Report January – June 2013 p 6.
56
Table 4-12: Extent to which case management plan goals achieved
2012-2013
Extent to which case management plan
goals achieved
Not at all
Up to half
Half or more
All
No case management plan
Total
Campbell Street
Closed SP
1
9.1%
1
9.1%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
9
81.8%
11
100%
Barrack Street
Ongoing SP
4
22.2%
13
72.2%
1
5.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
18
100%
Closed SP
2
4.3%
6
13.0%
3
6.5%
0
0.0%
35
76.1%
46
100%
Ongoing SP
1
6.7%
11
73.3%
1
6.7%
0
0.0%
2
13.3%
15
100%
Data Source: SHS
Anglicare’s report suggests the supported client residents at the Barrack Street facility enjoyed
greater goal attainment than residents at the Campbell Street facility between 1 January and
30 June 2013. Table 4-13 shows that of the total goals planned during case management at
the Barrack Street facility approximately 35 per cent were fully achieved. However, during the
same period no goals were recorded to have been fully achieved by clients at the Campbell
Street facility. However, we note the discrepancy between the SHS collection report and the
Anglicare synopsis of their case planning outcomes, suggesting some data quality issues.
Table 4-13: Case plan goal outcomes
Outcomes of Case Plan Actions
Action Outcome
Goal not achieved
Goal slightly achieved
Goal partly achieved
Goal mostly achieved
Goal fully achieved
Total planned actions
2012-2013*
Campbell Street
Barrack Street
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
13
71
20
10
0
114
11.4%
62.3%
17.5%
8.8%
0.0%
100.0%
14
39
64
68
99
284
4.9%
13.7%
22.5%
23.9%
34.9%
100.0%
*1 January to 30 June 2013
Data Source: Anglicare
The data available from the SHS collection regarding the type of education or training
programs in which clients were enrolled shows that the extent of client participation in
education or training programs was either unknown or not applicable in almost all cases (see
Table 4-14). For example, in approximately 95 per cent of cases where a support period was
on-going at 30 June 2013 education and training enrolments were recorded as not applicable
to clients in the Campbell Street facility (n=18). Similarly, 80 per cent of on-going support
periods at the Barrack Street facility recorded that education and training enrolments were
either not applicable or unknown (n=15).
57
Table 4-14: Type of education/training clients enrolled in
Type of education/training clients
enrolled in
Not applicable
Secondary School Student
University Student
Vocational education and training
Unknown
Other education or training
Total
2012-2013
Campbell Street
Week before
(n=29)
41.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
58.6%
0.0%
100%
Closed SP
(n=11)
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.1%
90.9%
0.0%
100%
Barrack Street
Ongoing SP Week before
(n=18)
(n=61)
94.4%
27.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
72.1%
0.0%
0.0%
100%
100%
Closed SP
(n=56)
21.4%
0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
76.8%
0.0%
100%
Ongoing SP
(n=15)
60.0%
0.0%
0.0%
20.0%
20.0%
0.0%
100%
Data Source: SHS
According to the SHS data collection, client incomes remained stable before and after entry to
Common Ground services (see Table 4-15). Data from the SHS collection for 2012-2013
states there were no clients without an income either before or during entry to Common
Ground services. However, a significant proportion of support periods record client incomes as
unknown. Where income details were recorded, the SHS data suggests that the income
source clients had before they entered the services did not change during the period they
received services.
Table 4-15: Main income source
Main Source of Income
Newstart Allowance
Disability Support Pension (Centrelink)
Carer Allowance
Employee Income
Unknown
Total
2012-2013
Campbell Street
Barrack Street
Week before Closed SP
Ongoing SP Week before Closed SP
Ongoing SP
(n=29)
(n=11)
(n=18)
(n=61)
(n=46)
(n=15)
6.9%
9.1%
22.2%
11.5%
6.5%
20.0%
34.5%
9.1%
72.2%
34.4%
28.3%
80.0%
3.4%
0.0%
5.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
0.0%
55.2%
81.8%
0.0%
52.5%
65.2%
0.0%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Data Source: SHS
According to the School of Medicine survey, no STs surveyed were engaged in paid work in
April 2013 (n = 23), although approximately 20 per cent of respondents had been engaged in
paid work at some time during the previous 12 months and 32 per cent of respondents had
been looking for paid work prior to entering CGT.
An AHURI funded investigation of client perspectives on CGT services provides some data on
levels of client satisfaction. Of 61 ST and AHT respondents surveyed during October 2013, 89
per cent (n = 54) said they were pleased with the housing they received from CGT with 87 per
cent stating they felt settled in the facility (n = 87). 80 per cent agreed they were satisfied with
the overall suitability of the facility to the needs of their household and most respondents
58
agreed the facility is well located, safe, and had resulted in a significant improvement in their
quality of life. Approximately one third of 61 respondents agreed they would like the service to
improve their level of health, wellbeing and life satisfaction and 84 per cent of respondents
agreed the service had produced a positive impact on their life (n = 51). There was some
dissatisfaction with overall suitability of the facility (13% of 61 respondents, n = 8). Reasons
included the availability or cost of car parking space, availability of private outdoor areas, and
the absence of universal access modifications for those with special needs.
4.2
Implementation of Tenancy Services
In this section we evaluate the implementation of the CGT tenancy service. This includes the
provision of safe, secure and affordable housing for people at risk of homelessness
accompanied by the provision of effective assessment and allocation procedures designed to
provide services to those with the greatest needs and risk of homelessness. It also refers to
the provision of processes that support residents to sustain their tenancies and encourage
tenant participation in service delivery and operations.
4.2.1 To what extent does the organisation provide safe, secure and affordable
housing for people at risk of homelessness?
Safety and Security
CGT has been successful in providing safety and security for tenants at both Barrack Street
(BS) and Campbell Street (CS) facilities. Both sites are secured facilities, purpose-built for
high-level tenant security including 24-hour on-site CCTV surveillance cameras linked to the
concierge throughout all entry, hallway and common areas. Access to facilities is limited to
programmed key card entry for staff and tenants, and visitors are granted access via intercom
introduction and sight identification by the concierge/security at the front desk. Visitors must
be identified and accompanied by their tenant guest at all times. Concierge staff are also
present at the front desk of both facilities throughout the day and evening (8am until midnight).
This high level of security is noted as important by both tenant and service provider
respondents:
On all levels life has improved because I’m safe. I have somewhere I can go to everyday that’s
mine, that I feel confident in, that I’m independent in. And that can only build your self-esteem and
your self-respect. So on every level I feel better about myself, yes. (T03, BS).29
‘…that peace of mind, you know someone is here 24/7’ (T08, CS)30
29
BS = Barrack Street
59
The other positive about living here is … they’ve got that sense of security. They’ve got the ability
to change their peer group;… the peers that might have been encouraging them to drink or use
drugs, so that’s been a great opportunity to say no, and have choice. That’s been a real positive
and I think that’s something that they identify. (SP14)
…the security is high and it’s good…I think it’s one of the most important things here. (SP05)
Service provider and tenant respondents both observed that while the objective of CGT is to
provide a safe and secure facility, this must be balanced with tenant rights to privacy, the
ability to live without undue surveillance or intrusion, and with the rights of tenants to enjoy
visitors freely. Some of these concerns have been addressed. For example, the tenant
manager has provided on-going education to all CGT staff regarding the rights of tenants to
privacy including protocols around arranging meetings with tenants. Another example is the
easing of visitor restrictions. Tenants are no longer required to sign every visitor in and out of
the facility although they must accompany their guests at all times.
When allocated a property at Common Ground, tenants are provided with a document named
‘CGT Basic Rules’ in addition to their lease. While not signed by tenants, this document
outlines the ‘house rules’ for living at the CGT facilities. These include no violence or drugdealing on-site, as well as the need to respect tenant privacy and right to quiet enjoyment.
Tenant respondents communicated an awareness of these rules, citing that in most cases
these behaviours were respected by all tenants.
They did tend to emphasise everybody’s right to quiet enjoyment, I think is how they put it. (T09.
CS)
It’s just common sense. It’s just about being courteous, polite, you know...some people like to keep
to themselves, some people like to you know, socialise....but I mean the majority of people here are
fine (T02.BS)
Some tenant respondents expressed unease about alcohol and drug activity on-site,
suggesting this may restrict the CGT goal of increasing interaction between tenants across the
two sites:
T: I know Campbell Street and I won’t go to Campbell Street.
I: Why is that?
30
CS = Campbell Street
60
T: Because there are people there from drug and alcohol and…not only would those people be
around but the people who deal to those people would be around. And to me that’s putting myself
in a situation that I don’t want to be in.(T03. BS)
In seeking to address the issue of drug and alcohol use, the possibility of police patrols was
raised by the Tenant Action Group (TAG). The TAG is a tenant-initiated group convened as a
forum to discuss issues and problems related to tenancies. TAG Meetings, open to all (ST and
AHT) tenants, are convened every month, and CGT staff (including CGT management, and
tenancy management) are invited to attend. In this case, the police patrol proposal was
rejected, and currently the residents are expected to negotiate respectful and acceptable
behaviour between themselves regarding drug and alcohol consumption within the boundaries
of the CGT Basic Rules.
A further issue identified by both service provider and tenant respondents was the importance
of the concierge service as a security presence and additional dimension of support.31 The
concierge was described as “the eyes and ears of support” (SP17). The front-desk presence
of the concierge was understood as a point of reference for tenants as a familiar, friendly and
consistently available service provider, and the first point of contact when tenants require
assistance due to tenancy issues such as disturbances or support-related issues.
I feel very relaxed and comfortable with them. (T01, BS)
I32: Who intervenes if there are problems? T: The concierge is the first line of defence usually.
(T06, CS)
Another tenant had like the same type of thing, same type of stress, and I say, “Would you like me
to help? Would you?” “Yeah.” I check it out. You authorise me to go to the unit. We go, we
check, it’s a mess. It’s a war zone. But you don’t say, “Wow!” You don’t. Easy. “Take this, put to
make a pile, I’ll do the dishes. I’ll clean the bench. I’ll do that.” To that extent, they switch and
they go, “I can take the vacuum,” they’re cleaning, they’re happy, they’re seeing someone… (SP03)
Affordability
The rental cost for CGT tenants is dependent upon the tenant’s eligibility category as specified
in the Residential Management Agreements. Rent for category 2 tenants (AHTs) is based on
market values with a maximum rent payable to CGT at 74.9% of the market value of the unit.
31
In outlining the rationale for recent changes to Concierge arrangements, the CGT Managing Director noted the
importance of the Concierge to both Supported Tenants, and Affordable Housing Tenants (whose views are not
represented in this evaluation).
32
I = Interviewer; T = Tenant.
61
For AHT tenants, payable rent ranges from $175 to $290 per week, with the higher-level
Campbell Street apartments based on increased market values per floor level. This equates to
an annual income range of between $30,330 and just over $50,000 using 30 per cent of
income as the standard for an ‘affordable’ rent.
Rent for category 1 tenants (STs), is calculated at a maximum of 30 per cent of their income,
varying according to their pension type which means that rents begin at $135 and go up to
approximately $180 per week. Setting aside rental subsidies, this equates to an annual
income range between $23,400 and $31,200. 1-bedroom apartments are slightly higher in rent
(by approx. $20) per week than studio apartments.
Part of the support provided for STs includes assistance to manage their finances. This
includes repayment plans for bond payments or previous debts, and assistance in establishing
mechanisms to manage rent payments such as direct debit facilities.
The equivalent annual income 33 from Newstart and the Disability Support Pension are
presented in Table 4-15.
Table 4-15: Selected annualised income rates as at February 2014
Single no children
Single with dependent children
Single 60+
Partnered (each)
Single carer
Newstart
Allowance Disability
Pension
(max payment)
(max payment + Dis. Supp.)
$13,026.00
$21,148.40
$14,094.60
$14,094.60
$11,759.80
$15,940.60
$18,197.40
Many clients of CGT may be eligible for an additional payment by accessing Commonwealth
Rent Assistance. The amount of rent assistance available from the Commonwealth varies
according to the rent charged to the tenant. The annualised maximum payments at February
2014 are summarised in Table 4-16.
33
These figures reflect those available from Commonwealth income payments current at February 2014.
62
Table 4-16: Annualised Commonwealth Rent Assistance rates as at February 2014
Single no children
$3,224.00
Maximum payment cuts in
above
(annualised rent charge)
$7,158.58
Single with 1 or 2 children
$3,774.68
$8,796.58
Single with 3+ children
$4,269.72
$9,456.72
Couple no children
$3,031.60
$8,696.22
Couple with 1 or 2 children
$3,774.68
$10,605.66
Couple with 3+ children
$4,269.72
$11,265.80
Maximum Payment per
year
Given the rental charges published by CGT the annualised rent charge for STs will range
between approximately $7,020 and $9,360 per annum depending on the specific unit leased.
Based on these figures, a single person without dependents who occupies a studio apartment
as a Category 1 tenant (ST) for $135 per week will pay $7,020 per year in rent and may
receive a rental support payment totalling approximately $3,000 per year. On that basis, rent
as a proportion of income for such a client is approximately 29 per cent per annum if they
receive Newstart Allowance and approximately 18 per cent per annum if they receive a
Disability Support Pension (with the Disability Supplement Payment).
However, the rent charged for a Category 2 tenant (AHT) is based on market value and type
of unit (studio or 1-bedroom). Households are considered to be under housing stress when
they spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs, for example a mortgage or
rental payment (AIHW 2011). To avoid housing stress for the lowest priced accommodation
($175), a single AHT must be earning at least $30,330 per annum; or at least $42,500 per
annum for an entry-level 1-bedroom unit ($245). To avoid housing stress for a 1-bedroom unit
at $290 per week, a single occupant must earn at least $50,000 per annum, which is $4,000
per annum higher than the maximum earnings for eligibility for a single AHT. It is possible this
could effect the attraction of the facilities for low-income tenants and be a contributor to high
vacancy rates for AHT units. These vacancy rates are a concern because of the potential for
this to impact on the financial viability of the facilities as a whole34.
4.2.2 To what extent does the organisation provide effective assessment and
allocation procedures designed to assist those who have recently been
absolute or chronically homeless to secure affordable housing?
34
CGT have advised that since this evaluation was completed they have taken a number of measures to address
high AHT vacancy rates including reducing rent levels, offering incentives such as reduced car fees, broadening
AHT eligibility criteria and increasing marketing of the units.
63
CGT and the broader homelessness sector respondents identified issues relevant to effective
tenant allocation with reference to allocations tools, sector interface, and allocation
timeframes.
CGT have adopted intake assessment tools designed to capture tenants from the recent
homelessness population most suitable to the CGT environment. These resources include a
pre-intake assessment eligibility check, followed by a Vulnerability Index (VI) survey, which is
a health indicator providing a scale (1-5) assessment communicating to CGT the level of
health vulnerability a person is experiencing. The higher the scale, the greater the health
needs of the individual. A comprehensive background check is subsequently undertaken to
assess eligibility. A strong CGT focus for eligibility is independent living in a communal
environment, reiterated to new tenants in the CGT ‘basic rules’ document as the ability to pay
rent and conduct themselves as a good neighbour.
Service provider respondents from the wider housing and homelessness sector identified
concerns in two areas. The first concern relates to allocation procedures, including the use of
the VI as a primary assessment tool, and CGT’s knowledge of, and collaboration and
communication with, the broader homelessness sector in relation to tenant allocations. The
second concern relates to the length of time taken to fill vacancies.
Allocations
The VI survey is used in CGT’s assessment process, as a tool to identify and prioritise those
with the greatest health needs. That is, the sickest homeless people (and not necessarily the
most difficult) are prioritised for supportive housing allocation. CGT service provider
respondents explained that in additional to the VI, a rigorous assessment process is
undertaken in which input from the sector (for example, mental health, hospital, GP records)
aids in building an understanding of a person’s support needs.
Three of the seven sector respondents highlighted the limitations of the VI survey tool in the
broader context of identifying and prioritising the complex needs of homeless people. As a
health-based tool, it was argued that the VI survey is limited in the information it can capture
about a person. For example, the VI may draw attention to the conditions, primarily medical,
symptomatic of homelessness, but cannot provide information about the underlying reasons
and circumstances leading to homelessness, or the accommodation history/context of the
person. One respondent argued that medical health is not the primary issue when it comes to
homelessness. The VI was also described as ‘inadequate’ (SP11), a ‘tick and flick’ sheet, and
a tool that misses ‘a whole chunk of that person’ (SP13). These respondents argued that
assessment tools need to provide in-depth information about previous accommodation, mental
64
health histories, addictions, or disabilities, and that these are not provided by the VI and can
only be uncovered through in-depth one-on-one discussions with clients.
Everybody’s got a story to tell and until you actually start peeling back the layers and finding out
what actually makes somebody tick and what has affected them so badly, you can possibly make
some difference… We ask if people are homeless, how long they’ve been homeless, we ask what
sort of services they’ve been accessing. We ask them about what’s actually going on for them. We
ask them the most relevant questions, and sure they’re personal questions, but they’re the
questions that we need to know in order to best support those people…(SP12)
Two key sector respondents expressed the view that to adequately allocate housing to those
experiencing primary homelessness, an in-depth knowledge, understanding and interface with
homeless people, and homeless service providers, is necessary. These respondents viewed
CGT as too independent from the sector, with consequences for sector integration and the
appropriate and timely allocation of chronically homeless individuals to supported
accommodation facilities.
35
All respondents indicated they had faced communication
challenges with CGT staff, for example noting the reticence of CGT to provide feedback to
service providers or prospective tenants regarding allocations. According to one provider, the
ability to network with, and draw on the strengths and resources of other service providers
across the state is one of the most effective ways to reduce homelessness.
That’s the beauty of the collaborative work… Everybody’s having a slice of the pie to actually try
and support somebody, because none of us can do it by ourselves… (SP12)
In recognition of the challenges of introducing a new model into a well-established sector CGT
developed a communication strategy that included contact with sector CEO’s, providing FAQ
sheets and guided tours and presentations, publishing articles and using eShelter publications
to disseminate information about vacancies.
They also draw on sector knowledge in a
number of ways including:

Homelessness service providers conduct the VI survey

A CGT staff member attends Homelessness Reference Group36 meetings

They access information from other services about prospective ST histories

The Housing Connect manager participates in final allocations decisions
35
Since the evaluation was completed, we have been advised by CGT that two thirds of the current support staff
have experience with working with homeless people.
36
The Homelessness Reference Group was established in 2012 to ensure that the chronically homeless in Hobart
are being provided with adequate housing services.
65

The support services manager networks with external service providers, including Housing
Connect specialist support services

They support sector development by hosting guest speakers, open home events, and
attendance at sector forums.
There are also factors limiting CGT integration with the homelessness sector including:

The relatively recent establishment of the service in Tasmania

The emphasis on provision of a service that operates as closely as possible to a
mainstream accommodation provider in which STs are treated as tenants rather than
clients

The employment of relatively high numbers of staff who do not have existing links and
experience in the housing and homelessness service sector.
From CGT’s perspective there is also a need for other housing and homelessness services to
reciprocate with their own initiatives to improve their integration with CGT.
Filling Vacancies
All the housing and homelessness sector respondents outside of CGT acknowledged and/or
expressed concern that the filling of vacancies in the CGT facilities was slow and that this had
a significant, or negative impact on the sector. A number explained that within the sector
there had been an assumption, following the 50Lives/50homes survey and the completion of
numerous Vulnerability Index surveys, that the new facilities would be quickly filled. They
described their frustration when they experienced what they perceived to be ‘very slow’
allocation rates, and consequent disappointment for homeless people. A number suggested
that better integration of CGT into the supports available through the housing and
homelessness sector would have made it possible to fill the vacancies more quickly and that,
given the vulnerability of the homeless population, this should be a priority for a service such
as CGT.
At the end of June 2013, 31 CGT tenancies were occupied by STs; remaining relatively
unchanged by Dec 31, 3013 with 30 STs, and increasing to 42 ST’s by end March 2014. To
provide a comparison with the Queensland Common Ground facility, which was opened in
August 2012 with 146 apartments fully tenanted by November 2012, CGT vacancies have
been filled relatively slowly.
Two CGT respondents acknowledged that allocating STs to the facilities had taken longer
than expected. In particular they noted the tension between having unoccupied units and the
need to provide appropriate supports to new STs in order to establish sustainable tenancies;
both for new (often vulnerable) tenants as well as existing STs.
66
This was new, no one had ever done it before. We started with - we opened and we took in two in
the first two weeks, we took in four a month for the first two months, we then moved to eight. It
moved to - it was staged over a six month period…. it was a carefully considered board position that
we stuck to in spite of it being terribly unpopular. Because it wasn't just about ‘get them in”, it was
about keeping them in. (SP17)
An additional factor was the withdrawal of Anglicare’s support service in October 2013. The
loss of support staff meant that existing STs were limited in their support provision for a period
of time. The lack of available support through October and November 2013 caused CGT to
slow allocations of CGT properties to STs until the replacement support arrangements were
operating. Additionally, a high number of explained ST vacations (see table 3.11) meant that
ST occupation numbers during 2013 were 46, but fluctuated with the vacancies.
4.2.3 To what extent has the organisation been able to implement processes
that support tenants to sustain their tenancies?
CGT has been successful in implementing processes that support residents to sustain their
tenancies.
Service Environment
A collaborative working relationship between CGT and the support services (including tenancy
manager, support co-ordinators and concierge) was regarded by all service provider
respondents as the key to supporting tenants to sustain their tenancies. Collaborative
problem-solving between these support services was regarded as critical for supporting
tenants towards independent living. These respondents expressed the view that if the support
worker or tenancy manager identifies a change in tenant behaviour affecting their tenancy, or
an issue that requires intervention, they need to work together to find solutions that deescalate the issue. To facilitate this, CGT management hosts daily (informal) and twice-weekly
(formal) meetings involving the tenancy manager, support co-ordinators and concierge. In
these meetings tenancy-related issues are discussed in a problem-solving forum where
decisions are collaboratively made.
Our role is to keep people housed regardless of behaviours. We can try to support them in
addressing these behaviours, but at the end of the day we want them to sustain independent living.
So then what we did with Anglicare, is that we [tenancy manager and support] would write up
support contracts with the tenants and get them to sort of agree to certain things. Don’t do this
and this, we’ll support you with that, but you’ve got to do this, this, this. And obviously it’s
voluntary, but for some that does work. (SP02)
67
Because it is so collaborative ... we have a consultative model where the tenancy manger and the
support worker wouldn’t make a decision on their own in isolation. Those decisions go to the round
table where there’s a senior support coordinator, the tenancy manager and ... operations manager,
[and Managing Director] …Bringing the facts to the table and saying okay we need to make a
decision here. (SP14)
CGT service provider respondents cited some examples where the flexibility to change service
policy or procedures has been an important aspect of assisting tenants to sustain their
tenancies. For example, a number of support co-ordinators noted that for tenants who have
been previously homeless and living in survival mode from day to day, a 12-month lease can
be extremely challenging. The first three to four months of supported tenancies are the most
precarious, as the new stable and supportive environment can raise unaccustomed
challenges for tenants. CGT addressed this issue in collaboration with the Tenancy Manager,
starting each new ST lease at 3 months, after which the lease is signed for a further 12
months.
One of the barriers that we have addressed for tenants moving in is that it used to be a 12 month
lease and now we make it a three month lease and that’s not quite as scary (SP14)
From the tenants’ perspective, it could be argued that probationary leases compromise their
security of tenure, although this has become a widespread practice throughout the social
housing sector.
CGT support service respondents also stressed the importance of collaboration between
services in relation to tenant leases, in particular resolving tenancy issues that might otherwise
result in evictions. For example, rather than issuing notices to vacate in the instance of a
tenancy breach, various options are explored and discussed with staff and the tenant. If
possible, an alternative solution to eviction is sought.
We steered this person [who did damage their unit,] … away from returning to homelessness. [He
was] extremely embarrassed and ashamed and devastated by [his] behaviour. [He was] given the
opportunity to make things right. So that person has worked a period of hours and hours and hours
to repay the repair of that unit... [and was] able to return to living at Common Ground. (SP04)
Service Focus
CGT’s current service focus shapes the environment in which residents are supported to
sustain their tenancies. CGT’s orientation toward treating supported residents as tenants
rather than clients and the accompanying view of CGT as a supportive, rather than supported
housing facility orients the provision of support around movement towards the goal of
68
independent living. Tenants are informed of their rights and responsibilities of being a tenant
and there is an emphasis on ensuring they understand they are free to make independent
decisions and initiate choices. This emphasis is balanced between supporting tenants to
sustain their tenancies and providing a supportive transition environment toward normalised,
independent living.
I try to [make it] clear to them that this is not an institution, it's not emergency accommodation, it's
not a temporary thing. This is permanent housing for them and the outcome we hope is that they
stay here and if they don't stay here that when they leave they're ready to leave into society in a
normal rental… There are supported facilities for formerly homeless people but a supported
environment is one where people get their meals cooked for them and it’s more of a boarding
house set up. As for us this is about independent living and providing the support to have people reengage with community and empower them to regain that independent living and that power of
choice and so forth. (SP14)
I guess the whole point of this is for them to learn to do things themselves so quite often they'll just
say, “Why haven't you – why have I got this problem and you haven't fixed it?” and that sort of
thing. So it's just learning to deal with how to talk to them about how they could fix their problem …
getting them out of the institutionalised type of thing, getting them to understand that this is their
home…. They [CGT] want them [tenants] ... to be independent, normal - I think that will be the best
thing for them, hopefully (SP05)
4.2.4 To what extent has the organisation been able to encourage tenant
participation in service delivery and operations?
Tenant participation is facilitated and encouraged in multiple ways across the two CGT
facilities. Some initiatives have been implemented to encourage socialising, while others bring
the CGT tenant community together to raise awareness around tenant-related issues. For
example, Tenant Feedback forms are available at reception, providing a direct feedback
mechanism for tenants to management regarding any issue affecting them. Monthly TAG
(Tenancy Action Group) meetings have been established by tenant request as a forum to
discuss any site issues affecting tenants and are attended by Campbell and Barrack Street
tenants as well as the Rock Property tenancy manager and CGT operations manager. CGT
service provider respondents explained that they encourage tenant participation in order to
empower tenants to make and own positive changes to their own home environment.
I see it as a way to help the tenants come to the realisation that they have the power to make
things happen themselves and make decisions. So I guess they started off coming to the [TAG]
69
meetings saying, “We want this to happen!” and then we’d say, “Okay, well how would you
organise that? Maybe you could try it for a couple of weeks and then come back together and say,
yes, that's working or no, it's not”. Yeah, I guess the whole point is to have the tenants eventually
being able to have these meetings and if they want something to happen they can probably
organise it themselves. (SP05)
Yeah we have one of them every month where we all get together and talk… just the long-term
homeless. We all get together and have you know, all the issues come out and we all talk of what’s
going on or whatever upsets us. Yeah, so they’re pretty good. (T01, BS)
I always go to a tag meeting with a list of things. (T03, BS)
CGT service provider and tenant respondents highlighted the involvement of tenants in
establishing social and recreational activities. Service provider respondents talked of their role
in encouraging tenants to initiate activities, and provide supports to facilitate their success. For
example, tenants organise and prepare Sunday lunches (Barrack Street) and Friday dinners
(Campbell Street), and this is available for all tenants to participate in at a minimal cost.
As a [support] team we sat down with the tenants one-on-one and identified what they’d like to be
involved in with activities or things they’d like to experience. Also what they could do, so that was a
way of how they could value add. We’ve… actually ticked off a lot of stuff that was on there, so
that was good. (SP02)
Last year the discussion about Christmas was a bit – well for years I’ve gone down to the mall, to
the colony 47 Christmas lunch so I’ll probably go there this year, you know. This year it’s completely
different it’s like let’s have Christmas at home... And they’re doing it, the tenants are organising it
themselves. (SP14)
CGT staff respondents also cited the value of the facilities for supporting tenant participation,
by encouraging social connections and tenant ownership over the sites. Common rooms are
used for group meetings and informal support meetings with tenants. Kitchens are the focus of
group meals. The art room in Barrack Street is used regularly by tenants who paint and
sketch. Outdoor areas are utilised for weekly Tai Chi sessions at Campbell Street, and a large
mural has been recently completed by tenants in the new outdoor garden area established in
Barrack Street. The Wellness centre is a focal point for tenant health, for example, men’s
group meetings, and the computer room at Campbell Street is described as a location for
social interaction.
At least six months ago, I said, “… you guys could use the common kitchen, cook a meal yourselves
on the weekends, or of a night time, or just invite each other.” Anyway they picked up on that and
70
they did a Sunday lunch, which we monitored but we allowed them to do it, and it’s been operating
for a number of months now quite successfully. It’s only like three or four dollars that they charge,
they sort of get a list of how many are attending. Each week they decide who will cook the next
week and what they’re going to cook, and that’s been really successful, plus it’s getting them to eat
healthier choices and that sort of thing. (SP02)
Staff and tenant respondents observed that the facilities are becoming a focal point for tenant
participation and ownership within their environment. Given the relative newness of the
facilities, some areas remain undeveloped, providing a means for staff to encourage tenant
input and initiative in their on-going development. Through the TAG meetings tenants made
collaborative decisions about where to locate a ping-pong table, planned and completed the
mural and organised care of the garden. Service provider respondents noted that there are
financial constraints that slow the implementation of some initiatives but the TAG meetings are
operating to ensure tenants increasingly feel that CGT is their home.
4.3
Implementation of Support Services
In this section we evaluate the implementation of CGT support services. This includes the
provision of processes to ensure that clients gain access to health and support services, and
education, training and employment options, realise their potential for increased connection
with family, and increase their community participation and improve their independent living
skills.
4.3.1 To what extent has the organisation provided tenants with increased
access to a range of health and support services?
CGT has been largely successful in providing tenants with continued, or increased access to a
range of health and support service, although changes in 2013 have resulted in interruptions
of support for some tenants.
Along with the provision of safe and secure housing, the provision of support services to CGT
tenants is the key to successful tenant outcomes at CGT. Tenants are assisted to understand
that support is a key element in successful outcomes at CGT. Only one tenant has refused
any engagement with support providers, although one service provider informant explained
that some tenants do periodically withdraw from support before re-engaging.
CGT has implemented a team-based approach to the provision of support to tenants, bringing
a range of case management expertise histories. Tenants are encouraged to develop a case
management plan with a support co-ordinator through which to measure improved outcomes
71
over time. Depending on the needs of the ST and the measures identified in the case
management plan, support co-ordinators support tenants across a range of health, social and
educational goals. This may include access to external health and well-being support services,
tenancy support, educational and employment opportunities, and social networking both at
CGT facilities and beyond.
Service Provision Challenges
Staff and tenant respondents identified challenges to the provision of support following the
withdrawal of Anglicare in October 2013. During this period, one former Anglicare staff
member was employed by CGT to provide support through the transition period. One support
co-ordinator respondent noted that there was only one reported week between the exit of
Anglicare staff and the commencement of re-employment of new support staff. It was also
noted that Barrack Street was limited to only one support staff member for a number of
months through the transition period. Consequently the exit of Anglicare resulted in a support
gap of varying lengths for a number of STs and in some cases tenants 37 have yet to reengage in the support process.
Oh look, there’s definitely negative consequences for the tenants because there was such a gap.
Anglicare workers did try to continue working right up to the last day, because you’re working with
people and their lives. And then they needed to employ people, so there was probably a gap before
that happened. That might have been eight weeks’ gap for some people… Yeah, certainly there
was, particularly if you’re working with someone quite intensely, and all of a sudden they’re not
there. Who do they go to, what happens to those appointments, or that support that was
happening? (SP02)
Support service respondents expressed awareness of the effect of this changed environment
on tenants. They explained that Anglicare developed an exit plan in collaboration with CGT in
which communication with the broader support sector was prioritised to reduce the potential
for disadvantage to tenants. This included advising all external stakeholders of the exit and
encouraging them to continue supporting tenants through the transition. Written reports were
provided for new support co-ordinators to ensure they were adequately informed about the
tenant support history at CGT. The re-employment of support staff was also prioritised by
CGT. Although CGT respondents acknowledged that re-establishing trust and rapport with
tenants towards re-building support goals would take a number of months into 2014 there was
also optimism about the changes. The new team-based approach and increased collaboration
37
As at the middle of December, 2013.
72
between service activities was cited as already bringing about effective outcomes for
tenants38.
I think we were really clear … that we would have an exit plan in place that did not disadvantage
any of the clients. So that was our Number 1 principle. (SP06)
[When Anglicare left] we had a team in place and you know, connections made with those tenants.
The fact that was able to be achieved in that relatively short period of time demonstrates we did
have the tenant’s interests absolutely foremost in our minds… (SP14)
I think people will start to feel settled by mid-January but I don’t believe that we’ll have everything
firmly in place and when I say firmly in place, things are going to continue to evolve and change. I
can’t see it happening before February with regards to people feeling really settled as a team, as a
full team.(SP04)
4.3.2 To what extent has the organisation been able to deliver a positive
environment conducive to social inclusion and participation, including
opportunities for tenants to reunite with and increase connections with
family members?
Since establishment, CGT has been successful in creating a positive environment where
social participation and social inclusion is actively encouraged and facilitated.
The high quality communal areas provide unique opportunities for all CGT tenants to engage
in recreational and social activities conducive to community building and social participation. In
Barrack Street this includes two common areas with outdoor courtyards, full kitchen facilities,
and lounge and dining areas, as well as billiard table, audio and visual entertainment, art
studio, and outdoor gardening areas. Campbell street facilities include a common room
including full kitchen, dining and lounge, Ping-Pong table, audio and visual entertainment, a
purpose-build computer lab, well-ness centre, and outdoor communal areas, including the
potential to develop garden and recreation areas. At both facilities current events and notices
are clearly displayed on pin boards, and a newsletter is circulated weekly to tenants regarding
regular activities and news items relevant to tenants. Regular staff and tenant-initiated social
activities (for example, cooking, art, tai chi, discussion based and learning based group
activities) take place in both facilities, and are dependent on tenant interest and participation.
It’s [Social activities] a huge part of their life and I think has been part of the huge success that
some of them have been able to enjoy, particularly the opportunity to go into for example the arts
38
We have been advised by CGT that a survey of STs undertaken at the Goulbourn Street facility in June 2014
describes tenants as providing a positive account of the support provided by CGT.
73
studio or to be able to go into the kitchen and just start cooking. Yeah unbelievably significantly
contribution because there’s just not that sense of isolation and that loneliness. (SP14)
But yeah, like the Art Studio … one of the formerly homeless tenants has really taken to that over
the 12 months so he’s in there a lot too, and what I’ve noticed, when they’re out smoking in the
common smoking area, what’s transpired over the last 12 months is a lot of them are using that as
a meeting area. They might just even just sit in there and chat while the others are painting, so it’s
actually been a really good meeting area, and they play some music and whatnot. (SPO2)
Special events, such as the art exhibition held in November 2013, enabled a number of
tenants to exhibit their work, build connections with local community members, and
successfully employ their skills commercially.
I mean we had this art exhibition… One of the [Tenant name] the guy who did the painting … he
earned $1000… [his] first independent income. (SP17)
A positive environment is also facilitated through the on-going availability of support staff to
assist in conflict resolution between tenants, and towards making healthy living choices (for
example, reduce addictions, eat healthily, seek medical help when required). Similarly, the
concierge is widely noted by staff and tenant respondents alike as contributing to a friendly
and positive atmosphere.
[The Concierge are] good people. They’ll sit there and talk to ya, they’ve always got a smile on their
face, you know, and you can come up in a shit of a mood, be there for two seconds talking to a
concierge and you’re walking away laughing. You know, and just plain and simple, I think they’re
good value. (T04,BS, 26.11.13)
CGT has also been successful in facilitating opportunities for tenants to reunite and/or
increase connection with their families. 39 When invited by tenants, support co-ordinators
discuss the issues that tenants identify as having caused relational breakdowns in families,
connecting the tenant with external support (for example, child protection or drug and alcohol
programs) to begin changes that may lead to family reunification; or providing on-going
support appropriate to the individual situation (for example, communication skills, or financial
planning towards interstate trips to visit family). In many cases, the stability of tenure itself
provides a conduit for family reunification or improved relations. For example a number of (ST)
mothers explained that unlike previous housing, living at CGT facilitated a safe environment
for their children to visit without the threat of danger. Support staff respondents noted that they
39
This statement needs to be qualified in the context that CGT is unable to accommodate families, thus reunification is limited to visits rather than living arrangements.
74
encourage tenants to invite family to visit them in their apartments, or to join them at the
communal dinners prepared by tenants.
There was one chap that came in … and he’d just been through a relationship breakdown with [his
parents] … But life changed, and yeah, just getting that stability, and knowing that he can ask for
anything… And yeah, and he then got to the point he would meet his parents for lunch. He was
really challenged by the fact that they were texting him to contact, and we talked through that and
whatnot. And then he did meet them in town for lunch, and then over time, with progress that he’s
actually invited them here. They’ve had meals here with him, and – so that’s really building.
They’re not at the point yet where they’ve invited him back to their home, but with time, things
have built up. He’s seeing his brother again, so I see that as a real positive. (SP02)
All CGT staff respondents pointed to the social mix of residents as important to maintaining a
socially balanced, normalising environment at the CGT facilities. The social mix of previously
homeless tenants living alongside AHTs was an element of the model viewed by CGT as
critical in facilitating social inclusion and developing a sustainable community.
The social mix…the diverse tenant mix of both formerly homeless and working low-wage so having
that social diversity is a critical element to making it work.(SP14)
4.3.3
To what extent has the organisation provided opportunities for tenants to
pursue a range of education, training and employment options?
Since the establishment of the facilities, CGT has provided opportunities for some tenants to
pursue a range of education, training and employment options. CGT have also faced
challenges in supporting tenants to engage in education, training and employment options.
This is in part because the outcomes, including the proportion of support periods in which
tenants are classified as ‘post-secondary student/employment training’, employed full-time’ or
employed part-time’ 40 are in some cases inappropriately calibrated to tenant abilities and
desires.
During their implementation phase, CGT established an affiliation with the local polytechnic
(TAFE), which offered a limited range of courses to STs. Subsequently it became clear that
this approach to education and training was not proving effective for tenants, whose interests
and abilities to engage in training were widely differentiated. Currently, tenants are supported
to identify skill and employment aspirations, and where possible and appropriate, linked to
available courses or activities. Support co-ordinator respondents also noted that for a number
40
As outlined in 2.2.6 of the Funding Agreement
75
of STs, depending on age or complexity of needs, formal training may not be within their
capacity to undertake, at least at some points in time. In these cases support co-ordinators
encourage engagement in activities such as volunteering or hobbies; activities that while not
regarded as formal training or employment, also constitute an important step towards
independence.
…realistically, social community relationships, family relationships, meaningful use of time which
could be starting employment, volunteering. For some people within their capacity it may not be
something that as formal as that, it might be an activity or a hobby that they can engage in. And
that’s – like even with the [Outcomes] Star [case management program], when we’re indicating
change, because someone’s complaining that they’re bored, if we can link them into things within
their interests and strengths, and get them attentive and participating, that to me is a meaningful
use of time. So you’re using your time in a positive manner, less time then be distracted to possibly
smoke so much marijuana or drink so much alcohol. I do understand we need to try to get people
into the workforce et cetera, but for some of them if that’s too challenging, finding something else
to do, that could be volunteering at the Salvation Army Hall. (SP02)
76
5 Evaluation of Service Participant Outcomes
This chapter presents the evaluation of service participant outcomes. Participant outcomes
follow the conditions outlined in section 2.2.4 of the Funding Agreement. These are evaluated
in terms of provision of support according to their need based on their assessments, that
consumers requiring accommodation are accommodated where the Organisation has the
reasonable capacity to do so at either of the Service locations, increased stability of tenure
and reductions in homelessness, reductions in resident social isolation and increased social
connection, including increases in family reunification and connection with family among
residents, increased participation in education, training and employment among residents,
increased independent living skills among residents, and improvements in the health and
wellbeing of residents.
5.1
Outcome 1: To what extent are those who are homeless or at
imminent risk of homelessness accommodated where the
organisation has the reasonable capacity to do so at either of the
service locations?
Since the implementation of CGT service, CGT has provided accommodation to those who
are homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness at both CGT locations. SHS data on the
extent of accommodation of the target group is inconclusive, and qualitative data suggests
differences between the CGT service expectations and those of the housing and
homelessness sector.
Target Group data
A summary of the quantitative data with reference to a range of indicators regarding client
presenting circumstances can be found in 4.1.6. A significant proportion of responses
pertaining to client presenting circumstances, such as client living arrangements the week
before being housed at CGT, or reasons for seeking assistance by CGT in the month before
entering the service, are unknown or unrecorded. There is also no data available to measure
clients presenting but not tenanted. There is therefore inadequate information on the extent to
which those who were homeless or at imminent risk of homelessness are being
accommodated. However, there are a high number of referrals from specialist homelessness
services, as well as a significant proportion of known responses citing reasons for seeking
assistance as inadequate/inappropriate dwelling conditions. Together, these suggest that a
77
significant percentage of CGT STs were sourced from the homeless or at risk of
homelessness population.
Interviews with tenants demonstrated a consistency with the suggestion that prior to being
accommodated STs experienced inadequate or inappropriate dwelling conditions. A range of
previous accommodation types were cited by tenant respondents, including: boarding house,
van or tent, sleeping rough, couch surfing and house sharing (private rental or relative). All
interviewed tenants stated experiencing two or more of these types of accommodation
circumstances during the two years previous to CGT tenancy, also suggesting instability in
addition to housing inadequacy in recent housing tenures.
Allocations & sector integration in referrals and allocations
While evidence suggests that CGT is allocating properties to those who are homeless or at
imminent risk of homelessness, the extent to which properties are allocated to those who were
chronically homeless immediately prior to accommodation is less clear.
This lack of clarity is due, in part, to the high numbers of tenants whose circumstances prior to
presenting to the service remain unknown. It is also due to differences between CGT and
sector perceptions and expectations of the purpose of the facilities in respect to housing the
chronically homeless. From the perspective of CGT, senior management respondents stress
that CGT is a supportive - not supported - accommodation facility, suggesting that from the
point of service entry STs should have the ability to live independently and in a community
environment. From an operationalization perspective, two consequences have followed from
this. First, client applications are vetted before a VI survey is requested, with a primary
criterion for continuing eligibility assessment being the individual’s ability to live independently
and in a community setting (among others). Second, since support provision by CGT is
targeted at individuals who are assessed as having the capacity to live independently and in
community, the facilities are consequently considered unsuitable for those with needs
requiring intense and prolonged one-on-one support.
Because it is about independent living (because it’s supportive not supported) and do we believe
that they can live within this communal environment and for some people it’s not suitable, it’s just
not suitable. It’s high density apartment living and we recognise that it’s not always going to be
suitable for everyone.(SP14)
I've found it really difficult the other day to say no to this fellow. Because I can't line up what five
hours, ten hours mental health support ... Because without that I can't guarantee the workplace
safety of my staff. So I just can't say yes... (SP17)
78
Of the wider sector interviewees, six respondents expressed concerns that CGT are not
allocating properties to the intended target group. They noted that in the context of the
continuum of homelessness services available in Hobart, sector expectations of the purpose
of the SAF model was that CGT’s provision of supportive accommodation to the chronically
homeless was the principle strategy for ending chronic homelessness in Hobart. The
participation of service providers in referral and assessment, through their use of the VI
assessment tool, and in the Homelessness Reference Group, was undertaken with this
expectation.
CGT is not perceived by these respondents as allocating tenancies to the chronically
homeless individuals who are in most need of access to higher levels of on-site and multidisciplinary support. In addition to concerns about the adequacy of the VI survey for assessing
level of need, issues raised included the emphasis in the CGT eligibility criteria process on a
person’s ability to live independently, in community and without a history of violence, sexual
assault and arson. The concern of these respondents is that this selection process effectively
screens out many of the most difficult cases for whom they understand the facilities were
purpose-built. Their perception remains that CGT is housing those who are at risk of
homelessness, or the primary homeless who have fewer demanding behaviours or less
intense support needs. Service provider respondents working with the chronically homeless
expressed frustration at how few of their most vulnerable clients, including those identified by
the Homelessness Reference Group, have been deemed eligible for property allocation at
CGT. One example cited was that 43 VI’s were completed by one worker over a 10-month
period but had resulted in only 4 property allocations at CGT. Another respondent stated that
they now refer very few chronically homeless clients to CGT for eligibility screening in order to
avoid client disappointment.
One of the concerns raised by these service provider respondents was the effect this had on
other SAF facilities because clients who were assessed by CGT as unable to meet its criteria
for independent living and had high and complex needs, were eventually housed in housing
facilities funded for low support need clients. A critical point was their view that the allocation
process was inadequately adjusted to take account of one of the key features of the
chronically homelessness which was that they had difficulty in sustaining a tenancy:
Traditionally the cohort we work with have always had difficulties maintaining tenancies, living
with people, getting on with neighbours, all of those sorts of things. So that [CGT] model doesn’t
necessarily suit all the people that we work with, but it’s not to say that it can’t. I think it takes a
little bit of courage and a little bit of dipping your toe in the water and doing some hard yards, and
79
doing some intensive case management and support, [that] can alleviate some of those problems.
(SP12)
Issues raised by some respondents in the wider homelessness sector also included concerns
around the lack of interface with, and/or transparency between, CGT and the homelessness
sector in relation to communicating the criteria by which properties are allocated, and reasons
why or why not individual clients are refused allocation to a CGT property.
CGT respondents expressed awareness that ST allocations were not always commensurate
with sector perceptions of who CGT should be targeting. Those involved in property allocation
noted the effort CGT staff were making to reduce barriers to the allocation of chronically
homeless individuals, and identified a tension between allocating properties to those with high
level support needs, and providing the resources to sustain these, and other, tenancies.
There are some tenants that we could never support because they need a level of forensic mental
health services for example that we would just never be in that space. I suppose there are certainly
people who have been through that assessment process who we’ve said we just don’t have the
capacity, the resource to actually be able to support that person, and we say that’s okay because
we can’t be all things for all people but it may well inform in terms of do we need to buy in that
support or can we get that support from somewhere else so we certainly explore those barriers?
(SP14)
[We've] got AHT's to consider, [We've] got staff to consider, [We've] got the community to consider.
Does that mean [we’re] soft targeting? No way, because it means all three of these [ST] guys are
still there. (SP17)
When I got on that table they brought you know, nine or 10 extremely difficult cases to the table
and they said, you know, "This fortnight we want to allocate two people, who do we look at?" And
you talk through all the cases and talk about what the current mix is like and then you allocate and
every single person I've seen them allocate has been hard [high need]. (SP11)
It is important to note here that the recent establishment of Housing Connect has led to
improvements in collaboration between CGT and Housing Connect in the tenant allocations
process. This has been perceived positively by the broader homelessness sector who view
this step as providing greater transparency about which tenants are housed.
80
5.2
Outcome 2: To what extent are tenants assisted in their transition to
independence through a comprehensive case management plan
tailored to their individual needs and circumstances; and to what
extent are tenants supported to achieve the goals identified through
their needs assessment?
STs at CGT are assisted towards independence through the provision of a case management
plan tailored to their individual needs. Tenants are also supported through on-going support
periods to achieve the goals identified through the management plan. Some successful
outcomes were tempered by tenant respondent concerns due to the loss of the support
worker-tenant relationship resulting from the exit of Anglicare.
Case Management Goal and Support Data
Data for 2012 and 2013 regarding services provided and level of tenant attainment measured
is available in section 4.1.7 and 4.1.8.
In general, residents interviewed across the two facilities observed feeling supported through
the development of, and support to achieve, case management plans. Tenants noted both the
provision of weekly or fortnightly formal meetings with support workers, and/or the ability to
ask for support on a needs basis. Respondent descriptions of the types of support received
ranged from requests for basic assistance with domestic duties such as cleaning or shopping
to help with finances, accessing external service such as the dentist or GP, assistance with
mental health goals such as reducing anxiety, accessing children, or support in reducing
addictive behaviours, for example through detoxification programs. With the exception of a
small number of those interviewed, tenants were satisfied with the support provided, citing the
usefulness of the Star Outcomes case management plan tool, the development of good
relationships with support staff, and citing a range of positive support outcomes.
And when I first come in, we used to do a star chart, we’d have between 1 and 10 in a star and they
were questions, you know, like how’s our drinking going? How’s our social activities going? How are
our support tenancies going? And all these questions around a star and we had this meeting every
three, six months and she’d mark up how well we’re doing from 1 to 10 and each time I did we got
better and better and become more stable and settled.(T01, BS)
Yeah, [I’ve received] a huge amount of support. My social worker [name] has helped me out
immensely and other members of Common Ground have really helped me out and so that's been,
that’s been really good, yeah. (T02, BS).
81
I had [Support worker name] who was really good. He helped me with the doctors, he helped me
with my methadone programme, he helped me with everything, he was great. ... We had this thing
and it’s got like health, income, about ten different things and then one to ten and you fill it in and
then say a couple of months later you do it again and see how it’s changed. It worked well. (T10,
CS)
For the few respondents unsatisfied with support, reasons cited were primarily with reference
to a lack of support in the development of basic daily living skills, such as shopping.
I’ve asked for help about food and they still haven’t … helped me since I’ve been here the whole
year. It’s pretty slack. I need the help, I need someone to help me budget my money, I need
someone to take me shopping, I’ve got no idea. I haven’t eaten properly except noodles since I’ve
been here. (T11, CS)
I could do with a little bit more support with [support worker name] from my shopping. It's not
going too good at the moment. (T07, CS)
Changes in Support Services
Tenant respondents raised a number of issues related to service changes through the exit of
Anglicare and re-employment of a range of new support co-ordinators. For those tenant
respondents whose primary Anglicare support worker was re-employed by CGT, changes to
their support were minimised and the stability of support provision through this transition was
expressed as a relief.
So thank God for that because we put all our effort into [name of support worker] and then they’re
going to pull the pin on it and we’re all freaking out, yeah. And then they’re going to pull the pin on
the Concierge’s, hire their own mob, you know, and we’re thinking, you know, all our friendship and
all our year of chatting and getting to know each other and that’s going to change it, so yeah,
drastic changes like that affect us. (T01, BS)
The only issue that came up for me was if [name of support worker] left. That was going to be a
major issue for me. I talk to [support worker] about it before she got offered another thing. I just
thought that her leaving and someone else coming in there it just would have been – it would not
have worked. And [name of support worker] worked with me since I’ve been here and she’s an
older woman, she’s a mature woman, she certainly understands where I’m coming from and where
I’ve been. (T03, BS)
For a number of tenant respondents whose support underwent a change in personnel, the
shift was marked by anxiety or a complete disengagement in the support process. In
82
particular, some respondents noted the need to re-explain their story again as emotionally
difficult.
I: When [support worker name] left, did that have consequences for you? T: Yeah, I think that's how
I sort of got - my schooling went downhill. I got a little bit - smoked a bit more dope and just
withdrew from people here. But it's all right now. (T07, CS)
I was a bit funny on that because the new people came in so we had to start all over again do we
and that, and I thought, no I can’t be bothered with this. I’ll speak to them when I have to. I had a
good relationship with the other mob. You get attached and then they f------ piss off. (T10, CS)
T: No I haven’ [re-engaged with the new support co-ordinators], just because I hate re-explaining
myself. Because I’ve been in foster homes and stuff like that I’ve just explained myself that many
times that when it’s someone new I just think here we go again. She didn’t know anything about
me or anything and I was like now I’ve got to tell her. So I find that hard. I: Do you think you might
engage in the future? T: Yeah definitely, I’ve just got to get used to it, just lightly tread and see how
I go. (T08, CS)
5.3
Outcome 3: To what extent have tenants actively participated in
education, training or employment as appropriate to their individual
needs and circumstances?
While increased participation in education, training and employment has occurred in some
cases where desired by tenants themselves, not all CGT tenants are able to, or are interested
in, pursuing these activities.
Data regarding the type of education / training CGT tenants are enrolled in, and their source of
income can be viewed in section 4.1.8. Tenant respondents reported on various strengths of
the CGT environment in increasing access to work, education and training opportunities.
These positives included: increased security of tenure providing the context to focus on study
or continue building skills (often contrasted to previous unstable living environments);
improvements in health and wellbeing building capacity to consider undertaking future
education; and encouragement from support providers to undertake study, including the
identification of appropriate education opportunities and means to access them.
I: Do you still feel like you’re moving towards some of the goals that you’ve set earlier, in that
case? T: I have. I do plan to do a horticulture course next year across the river. I’ve just… made that
start. (C06, CS)
83
I'm pretty much trained in [qualification] so I didn’t really need any more training it was just getting
back onto the computer. Because ... now I can use my laptop and know that it's secure in my unit
so that’s been really good, yeah. (T02, BS)
Yeah well there’s a few people who started going to school after they moved here and the thing is
too we get paid to go to school. I think that’s wonderful. (T03, BS)
However some tenant groups, particularly older tenants and those with chronic or mental
health conditions, do not desire to participate in work, education or training. Some
respondents felt they already have adequate skills, and others noted that their mental health
issues prevent them from engaging in education or training.
I’ll just stick to my artwork I think. I think I’m getting over the hill now, there’s no profession and my
artwork’s my career so I’ll stick with what I know, because I’ve got a good resume and that from
the past. (T01, BS)
I’ve got a bit of a short attention span so I can’t sit in a classroom for very long. I’m on a pension
from Centrelink ‘cause Centrelink done a test on me and, to them, for me to sit and think and
concentrate, I’m no good but for me to be hands on, I’m 100%. ... To me, I feel I didn’t have the time
to be a teenager or be a young adult ‘cause I have literally worked most of my life so I feel, at this
point in time, it’s me time. It’s time to work out what I want in life and I just don’t feel, at this
present time, work is what I need. (T04, BS)
Another group of tenant respondents noted that they have moved in and out of education,
based on circumstance and level of support required. For example, prolonged periods of
anxiety, or the choice to undertake detoxification through an off-site program may be
disruptive to study, and cause a tenant to defer training for a period.
I give up [study] this year. I've got a lady from Centrelink coming here today and I have to say that
I'm giving up. But I know what I'm going to do next year. I've got some voluntary work through
Tasmania's Voluntary Centre, which is just next door here. When I get out of my rehab and
everything, I'm making an appointment with him to try and get into some op shop - volunteering in
the op shop. Maybe that might help me to meet people and make some friends and stuff. Yeah.
(C07, CS)
Consequently, as noted in section 4.3.3, CGT goals of increased tenants participation in
education, training and work may not have been successful primarily because the outcomes
are not well aligned with tenant needs. But it should also be noted (see Table 3-15) that prior
to moving into the CGT facilities, 20 per cent of tenants were engaged in employment and 32
84
per cent were actively seeking work. It may be that there is some scope for improvements on
current levels of achievement by CGT staff in relation to supporting tenants to find work.
5.4
Outcome 4: To what extent are tenants actively encouraged and
supported to maximise their level of independence and life skills
Tenants at CGT are actively encouraged and supported to maximise their level of
independence and life skills.
A key objective of support provision at CGT is directed towards the development of
independent livings skills through the achievement of goals. The data on the extent to which
all the goals identified in case management planning (stability of tenure, health, education,
training and employment, and social/familial connections) are relevant here and can be found
in section 4.1.7 and 4.1.8 above.
Tenants arrive at CGT with varying degrees of interpersonal and independent livings skills,
which also may fluctuate depending on tenant circumstance and health. Tenant respondents
are acutely aware of the benefits of increasing independent living skills, and highlighted many
aspects of CGT as contributing to this attribute. Many tenant respondents cited stability of
tenure as central to increased independence, alongside aspects such as safety and security,
increased hygiene and cleanliness, receiving support to improve basic domestic skills,
budgeting and financial planning, or having one’s own facilities to cook in.
Because I lived at home for so long, we didn’t have many domestic skills and so that cleaning,
washing, cooking ... she [support worker] helped me with in regards to like I said, yeah, domestic
things and things like that. Just my overall lifestyle's changed, yeah, and that's been really good
and be able to kind of have a good perspective on things... That's probably the main thing, yeah.
(T02, BS)
One day I just - I went to get a packet of smokes and I had a little bit of money or something. I
thought, I'll grab something for tea. He [partner] got quite a shock, because he thought, well, yes,
he said, "You are improving, because you wouldn't have done that six months ago". Just – yeah...
[so] probably my confidence, just being able to do little things myself, like shopping and that.
(T07, CS)
On all levels my life has improved because I’m safe. I have somewhere where I can go to every day
that’s mine, that I feel confident in, that I’m independent in. And that can only build your selfesteem and your self-respect. So on every level I feel better about myself (T03,BS)
85
While many tenant respondents indicated an increase in independence skills, the School of
Medicine survey also indicates that close to 50 per cent of tenants continue to require
additional assistance with daily activities, such as internet and computer use, change
management, transport, access to children, budgeting reading or domestic skills such as
cooking.
A key challenge noted by tenant respondents to increased independent living skills was a
perceived lack of agency and ownership over issues related to their tenancy, including:
improvement to facilities, decisions about staff changes, or suggestions for social activities or
social events by tenants. Tenant respondents raised the issue that while CGT staff and
tenants had established a number of suitable feedback mechanisms, such as feedback forms
or TAG meetings, suggestions for improvement or concerns about current issues were
perceived to be not heard or acted upon by CGT staff. Some tenant respondents stated that
in having suggestions repeatedly ignored, their ability to act with a degree of agency in their
own home environment was limited. Other respondents felt that delays in the development of
outdoor communal areas, for example the Campbell street garden area, curtailed their ability
to become involved in the use of, and further development of their skills (for example,
gardening).
We have TAG meetings and I feel like it’s more to make Common Ground feel better about
themselves than actually us being listened to. And the fact is we live here. We see everything and
there’s underlying things that aren’t being seen and we’re not actually being listened to. (T03,BS)
I’ve been to probably three [TAG meetings] and after I realised that they aren’t fully listening and
don’t want to do anything to help them problems, I thought what was the point of me coming up
and trying to voice my opinion if they’re not going to do anything about it.(T04, BS)
I think they've got - people like [manager] and that have got to listen to us a bit more. Listen to the
people that actually live here. Because they don't, if you know what I mean. They go home. They
knock off. We live here. (T07, CS)
The next TAG meeting I think is today and everyone’s like “Are you coming to the TAG meeting?”
and it’s like what’s the point? No one’s listening. (T11, CS)
5.5
Outcome 541: To what extent has the organisation increased family
reunification and social connection amongst tenants?
41
Outcomes 5-7 are not specified as pursuant Consumer Outcomes in the Funding Agreement (2.2.4). They have been included
as inferred desired outcomes based on the Purpose of Funding and Strategic Objectives (2.2.1 & 2.2.3).
86
There is limited quantitative data related to this outcome, however qualitative data suggests
that CGT has been successful in increasing family reunification and connection amongst
tenants where the tenant has desired this outcome.
The first bi-annual School of Medicine survey found that more than half of the STs had spent
time with family members at least once a month in the prior 6 months (to April 2013).
Satisfaction with current family relationships by tenants is moderately low at approximately
30%. However there is limited CGT data available with respect to whether rates of family
connection have increased or decreased.
CGT facilitated (re)connection with respondents’ families in a number of ways. Primarily, the
safety and security of CGT provided a basis for (re)facilitation of family contact and the
(re)building of family relationships. In addition, tenant respondents noted improvements in
health and well being as a foundation from which to reconnect with family, citing support as
important towards the re-establishing of familial/social relationships in healthier ways.
Yeah he’s [father] had a visit. Yeah, oh he came down. He can hardly walk, he’s on a walking frame
and that, but he was pretty happy with it. He’s seen me in a lot of different places and he knows I’m
a lot happier here. (T01, BS)
And I’ve talked a lot with [support worker] about that and about what to do, how to re-establish a
relationship with my son and not do the same thing to him that his father’s doing that kind of thing.
Now I needed help in that and she was very good in helping me with that stuff. (T03, BS)
My mother visits quite regularly. (T06, CS)
Tenant respondents cited similar reasons for why support at CGT facilitated increased social
connectedness: stable housing tenure, increased health and wellbeing, and increased support
to cope with the emotional and mental health issues arising from relational challenges.
Well I suppose the main thing is because I've got a place of residence, I've got - I can say to a friend,
"Look, you know, do you want to come around and meet me here and then we'll go to the city," or
et cetera. So, yeah, it does, yeah. (T02, BS)
A primary objective of CGT is to facilitate social connectedness between tenants through the
utilisation of their facilities. For example, social initiatives to foster community at CGT includes
both tenants and external members of the local community in activities ranging from cooking
classes and communal meals to health and art classes and exhibitions. While the extent to
which tenant respondents chose to be involved in these social activities varied from no
87
involvement to extensive involvement, all respondents demonstrated an awareness of the
social activities available to them as CGT tenants. Many tenants were willingly involved in one
or more of these initiatives.
Yeah, they’re growing food down there, so they’re doing that. Meetings with the volunteers. The
volunteer people were here just earlier this week and they were talking to us about volunteer work
and getting part of the community and that’s one of the issues, being part of the community,
seeing it like a community based thing to try and steer us to a community sort of individual, not lock
yourself away and do nothing (T01. BS)
We sit and have coffee together, we go into the common rooms and sit down... It’s starting to
become a community and I think that that was probably the idea of it in the beginning was that
they set up a positive community. ... People who don’t know anyone get to know people here. I
mean I didn’t know many people down here. Hobart’s not really my stomping ground. But in terms
of seeing people and talking to people and there being company yeah this is a really good place for
that. (TS03, BS)
Well just that warm, a sense of community with the other residents here, was one of the main aims.
There’s weekly meals. They cook a meal, it’s by volunteers, they cook a meal every week, so we get
together and some nights there’s more people, other times there isn’t. That’s one of the community
things. Also there’s, in the common rooms there’s a table tennis table, so I play table tennis
occasionally with some of the other residents. So there’s opportunities to interact. (T06, CS)
Tenant respondents were divided about whether the social mix at CGT facilitated social
connections. While some respondents enjoyed living with a socially diverse group of tenants,
others felt animosity or disinterest towards STs from the AHTs.
There’s people here who I enjoy spending time with and who I can talk to and I think that mixture is
really good. When you’ve got a mixture of people then that’s how you learn too. Different people
and different experiences, different lives and I mean that’s what keeps you going is learning. And
you know I learn things from people here all the time. And I enjoy most of their company. So I think
it’s a good thing. (T03, CS)
They [workers] think they're better than us. Simple. They never try and make friends with us or
anything. (T07, CS)
Well, you cannot have a community if you’ve got people [AHT’s] that will plain and simply ignore
you and turn their nose up at ya. You can’t make a community with people like that, plain and
simple. (T04, BS)
88
Yeah well I think it works really well. Yeah we never see them. We never see the workers. They’re
either out working or you they just never come out. They don’t become of the community, but
that’s not to say that they’re no good, it just means we don’t know them. (T01, BS)
It is noteworthy that the School of Medicine survey highlighted that over 60 per cent of tenants
would like further assistance to participate in community or leisure events in addition to what is
already in place. This included activities like going to see a band perform, attending a
museum, exercise and information about, or transport to, other community events.
5.6
Outcome 6: To what extent has the Organisation improved resident
health and wellbeing?
The health and wellbeing of tenants is liable to significant fluctuations subject to a complex
range of factors including mental health conditions and health and wellbeing histories. Data
related to tenant health and well being prior to, and during their supported tenancy at CGT can
be viewed in section 4.1.8. Due to data limitations the impact of CGT on tenants’ health is
impossible to ascertain definitively. However, it is clear from respondents that the supports
available at CGT have improved tenants’ capacity to manage their own health and wellbeing.
Tenant respondents noted both increased health and a positive sense of wellbeing since
tenure at CGT. Health improvements cited included physical health, for example through
access to a range of specialist services including gastroenterology, dental or drug and alcohol
programs. While tenants did not always use the term ‘wellbeing’ explicitly, many descriptions
used by tenants encapsulate its meaning, for example, being happier, feeling better about
themselves and their circumstances, feeling a sense of freedom and independence, an
absence of anxiety or worry, or increased sense of self.
[I’ve enjoyed] just having a roof over my head. Not having to worry. (T07, CS)
Apart from that, there’s just having me own life, having somewhere that I can lay my head of a
night and not worry about what tomorrow’s gonna bring. Being able to access cooking facilities,
you know, that’s awesome. (T04, BS)
Just the stability. I don’t have to - before I had to take around all my stuff when I was homeless.
Now I can leave my stuff, I've got - you know, it's secure and so that’s one of the good things. And
again, it's just piece of mind. (T02, BS)
89
Well probably most of my life has improved in that I’m not having to live in an unknown house and
a known drug house. I do not have to have anybody in my house that I don’t want in there. ... On
all levels my life has improved because I’m safe. (T03, BS)
5.7
Outcome 7: To what extent has the Organisation provided stability
of tenure for tenants?
CGT has been successful in achieving stability of tenure for tenants. CGT is committed
through both of its facilities to provide long-term or permanent, secure housing for tenants.
Data on the extent to which tenants were chronically homeless prior to GGT tenure is
presented in section 4.1.6. Additional data presented by School of Medicine survey suggests
that for close to 70 percent of respondents, Common Ground feels like home, and more than
75 percent agreed that they would like to live at Common Ground long term. For over 50
percent of the STs in the survey (n = 23), the most positive difference to wellbeing over the
last six months was related to securing a property at CGT, including the stability it enabled
and finally having a place to ‘call their own’. Tenant interviews corroborated with this evidence;
in particular female tenants whose previous housing arrangements had been unsafe.
Just the stability... it's just piece of mind. (T03, BS)
Stability is very important to me because my whole life I’ve just moved and moved and moved. The
previous house before this one I was in for two years and that’s the longest I’ve ever been
anywhere. I’m coming up to a year here, I’m re-signing my lease today at some stage for another
year so I like that stability factor. (T10, CS)
Tenant respondents also expressed a sense of pleasure in the facilities available to them.
Many described previously living in unsavoury, often overcrowded and unkempt buildings, so
that moving to CGT with the newly decorated facilities was a taste of luxury. A small number
of tenant respondents noted that the studio apartments were too small, and in some cases
tenants had transferred (at the renewal of a lease) to a one-bedroom apartment. In most
cases however, respondents commented on the pleasures of having their own space,
including a large bed, their own bathroom, their own cooking facilities and modern appliances
in good condition.
Yeah definitely it’s the best place I’ve ever been in and the studio’s really good, you know, I’ve got
my art up and I just feel at home as if I’m living in an art studio. … It’s like a motel, I’ve never lived in
such luxury. (T01, BS)
90
Beautiful. Double shower, the shower is massive. The bathroom would literally be three quarters
the size of this room and then most of its just open plan, bed, kitchen, window…It’s grouse and I’ve
decorated it how I want. Well if you want to nail things in the wall of course you’ve got to ask but
I’ve got this beautiful tiger hanging off my feature wall… (T10, CS)
Tenant respondents felt that the procedures for establishing a tenancy with CGT were
transparent, including property induction and clarity around their rights and responsibilities
under the RTA and the rules for living at Common Ground. For example, respondents
commonly cited prompt payment of rent and good neighbourly behaviour as key to sustaining
their tenancy; and that a number of tenants had been evicted42 in the past due to breaches of
these rules. Many respondents had sought assistance in establishing direct debit to
automatically pay rent, or a payment plan to pay off the bond payment. Tenant respondents
reported few problems related to their tenancies, with the exception of minor disruptions to
peace due to loud music, or occasional interpersonal conflicts. Many tenants indicated that if
problems did occur with their tenancy, they could talk to the tenancy manager, their support
worker, or the concierge.
[If I had a tenancy problem] I’d just come down here and give her a call or… just ring up Rock
Property myself. (T06, CS)
Like, there has been a time, because I had a next door neighbour and her music was loud. I just
went to the concierge and said, "Could you please do something?" (T07, CS)
I’m alright with rent. I get it direct debited straight out, there are no worries there (T08, CS)
They did tend to emphasise everybody’s right to quiet enjoyment I think is how they put it. (T09,
CS)
A small number of tenant respondents desired to leave CGT in the near future. Younger
respondents tended to view their CGT tenancy as a secure and stable foundation from which
to establish health stability or undertake study or training. Women respondents of all ages with
a history of violent or dangerous housing contexts, as well as older tenants, anticipated
staying in CGT facilities permanently.
I’m over it. I don't think I’ll even stay here for a whole year (T11, CS)
42
The Anglicare report January – June 2013, along with updated data provided by CGT states that 4 tenants have
been evicted from CGT tenancies during 2013 due to behavioural breaches.
91
I'm hoping to get another place. But if I did renew my lease, I was probably going to try and renew
it for six months and look around. I don't want to rush into anything, or anything like that. I don't
want to - I want to take it slowly. Find something that I really like, yeah. (T07, CS)
My master plan is to… work full-time, get off the disability pension and to be un-medicated...
Maybe [stay at CGT] a couple of years until I gain full-time employment. (T06, CS)
I want to be here forever and that’s what I said to [friend], I said “If … I move into Common Ground,
it has to be permanent because I’m not moving again”. (T10, CS)
No - moved enough in my life. No I see [CGT] as a very long term. (T03, BS).
92
6 Discussion
Information
of
Service
Provision
and
Outcome
CGT is providing secure, safe, and stable long-term housing tenure to individuals with lowincomes, and individuals with a history of chronic or episodic homelessness, or who are at risk
of becoming homeless. The provision of this service is carried out across two modern
purpose-built facilities in Hobart city, offering studio and one-bedroom apartments at lessthan-market prices to STs in addition to a range of indoor and outdoor communal facilities.
On-site therapeutic support is provided to tenants with a history of homelessness. Tenants
generally reported high levels of satisfaction with their tenancy, including the facilities available
to them, the safety and security of the sites, and the on-going support available to them. Most
tenants also noted improvements to their health and well being, either arising due to the safety
and security of tenure, or as a direct outcome of the support provided in conjunction with their
tenure.
This discussion highlights the strengths of the CGT service, as well as some challenges
identified during the evaluation. These challenges relate to: the change from an externally
contracted model of support service provision to one in which services are provided in-house;
service targeting; the effect of tensions inherent in the governance arrangements of the CGT
service on tenant and service outcomes; and issues relating to contracting, reporting, and data
capture processes.
6.1
CGT Service Model
Recent homelessness policy reforms in Australia have been identified with the Housing First
approach, into which the Common Ground model of tenancy, security and support provision
fits. There is evidence that the direct provision of secure housing for previously homeless
tenants, combined with support services to assist tenants in improving a range of health
outcomes, has enabled previously homeless individuals to sustain their tenancies and move
towards independence through improvements in health, well being and social connectedness.
This evaluation has found that at the level of on-the-ground service delivery, the separation of
tenancy, concierge and support services is a key strength of CGT’s capacity to assist
residents to sustain their tenancies. All service provider respondents noted the advantages of
clear demarcations between tenancy, security and support roles. Each service endeavours to
provide high quality services to tenants at CGT, and demonstrated a commitment to the
93
tenants and the service delivery objectives. Evidence of each service’s commitment to provide
high quality outcomes for tenants was clear from their collaboration in relation to individual
tenant objectives, and the extent to which there was encouragement to leverage the tensions
inherent in collaborative practice to affect the best outcomes for tenants. For example, the
tenancy manager has utilised expertise with the RTA to educate and support concierge staff
regarding their rights and responsibilities to tenants. Similarly, support workers are able to
assist the tenancy manager to gain a deeper understanding of why a tenant might be causing
minor disturbances, and collaborate in strategies to reduce instability. The interfaces between
the various services provide critical points of collaboration through which tenant care is
prioritised.
The separation of support services from tenancy management in the tripartite arrangement
was accompanied by clarity about the mechanisms for tenants to address any concerns to the
appropriate staff member. For example, tenants were aware of who to talk to for tenancy
related problems, and understood that the concierge would be able to help them at night to
address any disturbances or anti-social behaviour. Importantly, tenants and staff noted that
the on-site support environment facilitated the growth of spontaneous, fluid relationships
between staff from all services and tenants. This did blur boundaries between professional
roles in some cases, but tenants in particular felt strongly that this was an important and
productive element of their home environment. Many tenants, for example, noted the
friendliness of the concierge staff, to the extent that some tenants named them ‘friends’.
CGT service provider respondents indicated that while many contacts with tenants were
formal (for example, in relation to a service activity, such as a tenancy issue or a support
issue), the informal contacts with tenants were important for building trust, rapport and a
positive living environment for tenants. The concierge cited examples of providing assistance
to tenants in maintaining their apartment, or being a supportive presence if a tenant was
feeling anxious. The tenancy manager similarly noted that her interactions with tenants went
beyond tenancy issues, to include casual, friendly conversation and at times a supportive
companion. While the benefits of delineating service provision roles is evident and the expert
provision of services appropriate in its context, informal social interaction was also sought by
tenants and extended to them by staff. We suggest genuine friendships and sincere social
interactions based on respect are critical factors contributing to the ‘normalised’ experience of
tenure for clients at CGT.
As the Housing First model has evolved, the way in which the principle of separating tenancy
management from tenant support has been implemented has varied. In northern Tasmania
the SAFs are delivered collaboratively by two separate agencies, CHL and Anglicare, and the
94
Specialist Assessment and Intervention Practitioners Program (SAIP) directly contracted with
Housing Tasmania. In the south, CGT has operated two service models in succession with
the first involving external providers contracted for concierge and support services and the
second involving an external provider for tenancy management services and direct provision
of concierge and tenant support services.43
The agreement to end the external provision of support services was negotiated between
Anglicare and CGT in a co-operative way, but the interview data suggests attempts at
collaboration between the two organisations encountered a number of challenges. A central
challenge was establishing agreement on an appropriate and equitable service and funding
specification and an appropriate set of performance measures. In most such arrangements, a
contractor is provided with a sum of money to deliver services, after which unexpended funds
are returned to the funder or additional funds are made available in line with pre-defined
terms. This was not the case with the relationship between CGT and Anglicare and as a result
Anglicare encountered issues maintaining its workforce commitments on what amounted to a
fee-for service basis. These challenges appear to have been particularly pressing in cases
where Anglicare increased staff numbers to maintain the desired ratio of support workers to
tenants only to find the number of Supported Tenancies was fragile and that a downward
trend in the number of Supported Tenancies would place client support workers continued
employment at risk.
Our analysis of the responses received during the evaluation indicate the need for firm
agreements between CGT and the support provider on how to achieve the objectives
specified in the Funding Agreement and that the absence of an adequate service agreement
specification between the two organisations required greater prioritisation and attention by all
stakeholders including Housing Tasmania. The interviews suggest that one of the barriers to
achieving greater consensus were differences in service philosophies on the most effective
practice models for providing accommodation to the chronically homeless population. The
interviews with Anglicare respondents suggest that although they accept the principles of
Housing First they position these principles within a client-centred model of care in which there
is an assumption that achieving independence and empowerment may mean different things
for different clients and that some clients will require intensive support for significant periods of
time while others clients will not. In contrast, CGT’s service philosophy locates these principles
within a service delivery framework that aims to balance sustainable business practices, the
enhancement of personal responsibility, and a managerial paradigm in which objectives and
targets are met by identifying and installing the most appropriate governance structures. The
interviews suggest that these differences were a critical barrier to achieving collaboration. For
43
DCM still retains the contract to provide one security personnel for each site during the 24.00-08.00 shift.
95
example, in cases where Anglicare’s support workers felt micro-managed, CGT expressed a
duty of care towards their tenants. When CGT felt unable to make flexible decisions around
tenant support, Anglicare’s support workers cited the need for tenant privacy and
confidentiality according to industry approved, practice-based procedures.
Although critical of a number of aspects of the operation of CGT, service respondents working
outside CGT were uniform in their support of, and commitment to the Common Ground model
of care, with its principles of housing first, emphasis on client independence and
empowerment, and the normalisation of accommodation provision through strategies such as
tenant support, a varied residential mix and the security of the physical environment. From
their perspective, there is nothing wrong with the Common Ground model itself. Instead the
challenges preventing sector collaboration, which are critical for effective service provision,
seem to arise from the divergent service cultures in terms of understanding how the Common
Ground principles are translated in practice. This divergence seems to go some way towards
explaining why the parties involved asserted that no KPIs had been agreed despite their
inclusion in the Funding and Residential Management Agreements.
The exit of Anglicare and DCM (concierge) contractors from CGT raise some issues that
appear to have impacted on service delivery and the achievement of service and client goals.
First, tenant feedback in this evaluation suggests that the change to support arrangements
may have compromised outcomes for some tenants. A number of tenant respondents spoke
articulately about the way that these changes affected them by generating anxiety, invoking
feelings of insecurity, leading to a loss of continuity in support and/or other activities such as
education, and the frustration they experienced in needing to repeatedly retell their stories to
new faces. A number of tenant respondents were unsure about whether to take up the
services offered by the new support co-ordinators. These responses reiterate the importance
of continuity and predictability for vulnerable tenants. The changes jeopardised the goal of
providing tenants with stable and secure tenure due to inconsistencies and gaps in the
provision of tenant support.
For CGT supported tenants, it is imperative that in the context of vulnerable tenants’ own
home environment, services are put in place in a way that minimises any risk to their longterm sustainability. This requires Funding and Service Agreements for support providers to be
in place at the earliest stage of service provision and a requirement for CGT to keep Housing
Tasmania informed and involved in resolution of any risks to support services. When changes
to service arrangements are necessary, these should only occur after an adequate period of
extensive and meaningful communication with all affected tenants.
96
These issues indicate reduced transparency in relation to CGT governance structures,
particularly in relation to responsibilities for service and support delivery to tenants. The
Funding Agreement states that CGT is to achieve its strategic objectives by ‘providing or
arranging for the provision of support services…’ to consumers. 44 This appears to grant CGT
the right to either create a sub-contract or retain direct provision of support services to
consumers. However beyond the requirement that the Director of Housing gives consent for
sub-contracting, there are no additional specifications covering the sub-contracting process or
the content of sub-contracts, including the role of the Director of Housing in establishing these.
Nor is there provision for dispute resolution processes or the limits to the sub-contractual
arrangements.
For example, it is possible, given the lack of specificity in the Funding
Agreement, that CGT could create a ‘cooperative agreement’ with a supplier for support
services rather than a sub-contract. Any positive requirement for CGT to ensure that the
subcontracting organisation complies with all the obligations of the Funding Agreement is
remote from the service specification that sets out what Housing Tasmania wishes to procure.
In the case that a sub-contract is implemented, we suggest that currently the structure of the
Funding Agreement obscures the line of accountability between the Director of Housing and
the Director of Housing’s duty of care to customers.
In addition, although the Funding Agreement identifies the NPAH as the overarching
framework for its operation, and the NPAH is informed by Housing First principles, it does not
specify that tenancy management and support services should be provided in a way that is
consistent with a Housing First model of addressing homelessness. Consequently, the
benefits of and reasons for engaging distinct organisations to provide tenancy management
and support services respectively do not form part of the service specification. This makes the
purpose of the Funding Agreement less transparent than it otherwise might have been had the
defining elements of the Housing First model been included.
Under the current arrangements of direct provision of support and security services by CGT,
which limits the separation of services from CGT to tenancy management only, the extent to
which the Common Ground operation in Tasmania is an implementation of the Housing First
model of homelessness service provision is open to question. The separation of support
services from tenure are recommended under the Housing First model for three main reasons.
Firstly, to ensure that the advocacy role of support workers is not compromised by the delivery
of support and other (e.g. concierge) services within the same organisation. Secondly, to
ensure there is continuity of support services in the event different accommodation
arrangements are made. In this way the support services are not constrained by any
conditions arising from a tenancy agreement and may ‘travel’ with the client should their
44
See 2.2.3 Strategic Objectives of the Funding Agreement.
97
tenure needs change. Thirdly, to ensure that adequate expertise, sector knowledge and
integration is maintained in the provision of support to tenants (Johnson et. al, 2012).
Because tenancy management services at CGT are provided by an external provider the first
requirement is met, but there are potential difficulties with the second and third requirements.
It is not clear how continuity of service will be provided to tenants who leave, nor how well the
in-house model of support facilitates integration with the homelessness sector and ensures
access to its expertise. The latter is especially important given CGT’s corporate model of
service delivery which, in its original formulation was to be balanced by bringing in
homelessness sector expertise through the arrangement with Anglicare. Given that CGT’s
strengths are its business practice and networks, Anglicare’s strengths in industry-approved
support practices, networks and knowledge were regarded as essential to meet the needs of
CGT STs. Under the new arrangement of direct provision of support services it is possible
that homelessness sector knowledge within the service, and CGT’s capacity to integrate with
the homelessness sector, are diluted.
6.2
Occupancy Levels and Allocations
A key set of issues raised by this evaluation relates to concerns about occupancy levels and
property allocations. These issues relate to vacancy rates, allocation timeframes, CGT
allocations tools, eligibility policies, and targeting of the client group. The issues are complex
and situated in a specific service context but they are important for the housing and
homelessness sector in Tasmania, especially CGT and Housing Tasmania. They point to the
need for all stakeholders to collaborate in ensuring the needs of Hobart’s chronically homeless
population are met.
Both of CGT’s two facilities in Hobart were fully operational by the end of 2012 but by March
2014 they had yet to achieve full occupancy, and for most of the period were well below
minimum levels for both STs and AHTs. In the case of STs the explanation for this lies partly
in CGT’s concern to increase occupancy slowly to ensure a stable tenant environment and the
need to manage the change in support arrangements for tenants following the departure of
Anglicare. However, these factors are no longer operational and it is essential to improve
occupancy levels given the level of housing need amongst the homeless population. The high
vacancy rates amongst the AHTs are of equal concern given their impact on the financial
viability of the facilities. For both STs and AHTs there is an urgent need to improve vacancy
rates. For AHTs, this may require a review of the rent setting model to ensure it is set at
optimal levels.
98
Timeframes for allocating properties are reported as four to six weeks from first referral.
There was a perception amongst some service provider respondents outside of CGT that this
was lengthy, given the vulnerability of this population.
The contractual documentation for CGT with Housing Tasmania states that a minimum of 40
per cent of property allocations at the Common Ground sites are to be allocated to individuals:
‘who have been absolute or primary homeless in the period before they become a resident’
(RMA, p.39); or ‘who were chronically homeless in the period immediately before they were
accommodated’ (FA, p. 38). This is generally consistent with other Common Ground services
in Australia in which the target population for long-term accommodation provision is the most
vulnerable from the primary or chronically homeless population.
Within CGT a key operational principle is that not all chronically homeless individuals are
suitable for accommodation at CGT, and they are confident that their allocation tools and
decisions are appropriate for the objectives set out in the Funding and Residential Tenancy
Management Agreements and are appropriately calibrated to the resourcing levels, facilities
and tenant mix that characterise the service environment. The organisation has invested
significant effort in developing policy and operational procedures for ST property allocation
through strict eligibility criteria and processes including initial screening, the use of the VI
survey and an in-depth report on the history of potential tenants. CGT respondents agree they
are ‘selective’ in tenancy allocations and require screening of all prospective tenants to ensure
they possess a level of independence and ability to live within a socially mixed community
setting. CGT respondents explain this is necessary to maintain a balanced and healthy
‘normalising’ accommodation environment into which new tenants can integrate with adequate
support. In response to concerns about whether they are appropriately targeting the intended
client group of primary and chronically homeless their view is that the VI determines who are
the most vulnerable of those undertaking intake assessments and this is used to decide on
whether they will be offered a vacant property. In their assessment their tenants have high and
complex needs. This view was supported by one informant outside CGT who believes that,
with the establishment of Housing Connect, CGT are allocating tenancies to an appropriate
proportion of high needs clients.
Other respondents in the broader housing services sector highlighted the following points:

Targeting: The perception of these respondents is that despite their referral of
homeless clients who they have assessed as suitable for CGT tenancies, a high
percentage are rejected. They believe this is because the allocation processes are, in
some cases, screening out high needs and chronically homeless clients from eligibility
at CGT and that this is problematic because CGT is funded to house high support
99
needs individuals within the chronically homeless population. From their perspective,
the pre-screening process to ensure eligibility to live independently at CGT operates in
a way that excludes the most difficult homeless clients from CGT tenancies. This
perception was held particularly strongly by those respondents who were engaged
daily in supporting the primary or chronically homeless. They regarded characteristics
of high needs, difficulty maintaining social relationships, and high support requirements
to transition to independent living as inevitable features of many of their homeless
clients. To screen out those who may experience difficulty conducting themselves as
‘good neighbours’, living independently, or who carry a record of violence/assault,
arson or drug dealing, immediately screens out many of their most vulnerable
homeless clients from accommodation at CGT facilities despite their understanding
that the facilities have been designed for this group.
There is a consistency in these accounts that is also supported by the available data
from the HRG that suggests high numbers of referrals are refused accommodation by
CGT, as well as the continuing high vacancies at the two CGT facilities.

Service Integration: Another area of concern was perceptions about limited
collaboration between CGT and other housing and homelessness services within the
region. This was believed to hinder the capacity of both CGT, and the sector as a
whole to achieve its objectives and, in their view, made inadequate use of the depth of
experience and knowledge the sector has to offer. These respondents experienced
CGT as reticent to communicate its reasons for refusing allocation to clients who had
been assessed by them as appropriate, and as unwilling to work with the referring
service for their re-application. These respondents also sought more engagement from
CGT in relation to addressing their concerns that the assessment processes for
allocations needed adjustment because they did not capture key reasons for
homelessness.
These respondents believe that there is limited collaboration and communication
between CGT and the housing and homelessness sector, and that this, together with
slow allocation of properties, and the rejection of the more resource intense homeless
individuals, has meant that other services within the sector have to meet their needs
despite not being funded for this. They provided examples of vulnerable and high
needs clients being housed and supported in accommodation designed for individuals
with low support needs due to their rejection from CGT facilities and the lack of
appropriate alternatives. They were concerned at what they saw as some mismatch
between the funding received by CGT and the level of service it provides to the
100
homeless sector. They also believed that one of the reasons why CGT was cautious
about its capacity to support tenants with high and complex needs was that it was not
drawing sufficiently on the depth of expertise and support available within the sector.
In their view, improved referral, consultation and collaboration with the full range of
available services across housing, education, health and family services, would
increase the capacity of CGT to meet the demand within the homelessness population
for housing.
Importantly, all stakeholders including CGT, agree there is a gap in the homelessness sector’s
capacity to appropriately provide housing for the most difficult, long-term, and chronically
homeless population, and that within this group there will be some who may not be suitable for
accommodation in a community-based facility such as CGT.
The extent to which CGT sits apart from other housing and homelessness services is most
likely influenced by its distinct service philosophy. Its principles of financial sustainability,
supportive rather than supported housing, and emphasis on being a mainstream housing
provider, infuse the service culture of CGT, including the design of eligibility criteria and
allocations procedures. Although CGT has been developed as a Housing First approach
there is a tension between Housing First principles of providing housing regardless of whether
clients are drug-free, debt-free, or ‘housing ready’ and CGT’s requirement that tenants are
able to live independently, with some provision for training, education, or external support to
assist them to achieve this. This requirement to live independently implies a degree of housing
readiness that may, at times, be at odds with the Housing First emphasis on providing stable,
permanent housing as quickly as possible.
CGT service provider respondents expressed the view that they operate differently from
previous models of homelessness service provision and this differentiates it from other
services in the sector. This is evident in the observation of a number of CGT respondents that
it is not a homelessness service. This is not necessarily a cause for concern in itself, but
becomes one if it is associated with low levels of communication and collaboration with other
services, as is suggested by the interview data. CGT’s Funding Agreement specifies
(Activities 2.2.5) that to provide seamless support to tenants, CGT must ‘establish close
working relationships and good linkages with other support services and work with these
services’. Further, a core aim of both the NPAH which is underpinned by the Housing First
model, and Housing Connect, which provides the immediate service provision context into
which CGT fits, is improved service integration. In this case CGT’s limited integration with the
sector appears to have limited its capacity to meet its goal of housing the most needy
chronically homeless.
101
The changes that have been made to CGT’s model of service delivery from a mixed provider
model to one of direct service delivery is a further factor contributing to perceptions within the
sector that it is operating in a way that is somewhat detached from the broader homelessness
service sector.
6.2.3 Improving Targeting and Service Integration
The sector’s concerns about client targeting and service integration at CGT finds some
resonance in overseas evidence where new housing service providers broadly following the
Housing First model have been found to be reluctant to work with those who are traditionally
‘difficult to house’ and not always successful in predicting which applicants will be able to
sustain their housing tenures (Stefancic and Tsemberis 2007). Some Housing First projects
have also reported lower rates of housing retention in spite of the extensive selection criteria
applied in recruitment strategies (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010). An example of this is Common
Ground New York, which adapted its initial intake to create greater flexibility in the allocations
process including removing some behavioural and legal exemptions. This enabled the
organisation to capture a greater number of primary homeless individuals for tenant eligibility
(Johnsen & Teixeira 2010). It is possible there are tools within the Common Ground network
and other Housing First models that should be considered by the service to ensure its
allocations procedures are aligned with current evidence-based industry practice.
The Funding Agreement and the Residential Management Agreements provide basic
parameters for the target allocations group in the requirement to house individuals who have
been absolutely or primary homeless immediately prior to presenting at the service.
However, to reduce confusion or disagreement about who CGT should be targeting, the target
group should be more precisely identified, including identifying the level of service need. This
should be stated in the Purpose of the Funding with corresponding consumer outcomes
specified in the Funding Agreement. This recommendation is different from the
recommendation for the Tasmanian SAFs because in that case the identified need was to
provide more flexible targets so that they did not prevent the service from increasing its intake
of high needs individuals in response to periods of increased demand within the homeless
population.
Given the emphasis on service integration within the NPAH, and its importance for the
integrity of the Housing First model, the concerns about the level of collaboration and
102
communication between CGT and the housing and homelessness sector require attention.
Particularly problematic is the suggestion that service provider respondents may be declining
referral of clients for application to CGT due to their experience of allocation refusals. The
interview data suggests the implementation of Housing Connect is going some way towards
improving some concerns around allocation but strengthening co-operation between CGT and
other homelessness services should be a priority for all stakeholders. Strategies include
reviewing mechanisms for improving information sharing, such as data monitoring as a site for
integrating CGT allocations decisions with Housing Connect 45 . Housing Connect is also
developing a Common Assessment Framework (CAF), which may provide an opportunity to
align CGT eligibility assessment and referral protocols with those of Housing Connect and the
broader housing sector46. Other strategies include co-funding or co-resourcing of programs,
and participation in formal and informal forums that aim to improve understanding and
knowledge exchange between CGT and other housing and homelessness services. This
could include workshops designed to improve alignment across the sector in relation to
service expectations and objectives, and allocation criteria and processes.
This is especially important given CGT’s movement to a more direct model of service
provision, since this arrangement has the potential to curtail collaboration with other services.
Service capacity and client outcomes are maximised by sharing sector knowledge through
referrals, strong networks and reciprocal collaborative arrangements. A particular focus of
attention is ensuring exiting clients do not lose any supports that have been identified as
important for sustaining them in appropriate and stable accommodation.
6.3
Tenancy and Reporting
There are a number of areas related to tenancy and reporting we suggest need attention:47

There are questions about the sustainability of the CGT SAF model because CGT clients
view their tenure as long-term or permanent when in fact only shorter-term or mediumterm state service funding for support and tenure is guaranteed. For example, the current
Funding Agreement for the provision of support to tenants will expire mid-2015, and the
Residential Management Agreements will expire mid-2022. Despite the obvious policy
intentions of Housing Tasmania and CGT to provide continuing tenure and support to
45
Housing Connect is developing a framework for monitoring client pathways through the housing system See 1.6
& 1.7 (ww.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/141863/Housing_Connect_Service_Implementation_Plan.pdf)
46
See 3.4 & 3.5
(ww.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/141863/Housing_Connect_Service_Implementation_Plan.pdf)
47
Some of these areas have been identified in the evaluation of the SAF facilities in northern Tasmania, namely
Grove House, Thistle Street and Thyne House and are therefore covered in less detail here. See Gabriel ,Lloyd
and Stafford 2013.
103
residents, this potential insecurity is not necessarily communicated to or understood by
tenants. There is a need to provide a commitment to on-going and adequate resourcing for
the CGT support services to ensure security of tenure for ST residents. Alternatively, the
FA and RMAs should reflect the intention rather than commitment of Housing Tasmania
and CGT to provide permanent, secure tenure and access to support services for
supported tenants.

There is some tension between service goals of achieving client independence and the
long-term nature of the accommodation facilities. CGT service provider respondents and
tenants place high value on the security of tenure provided by living at CGT, but staff and
management also have an expectation, outlined in CGT objectives, that where appropriate
tenants will eventually be sufficiently independent to move to mainstream accommodation
not linked to a homelessness service. Currently, intentions around the optimal level of
independence achieved for transitioning people from the facilities remains unclear and
unarticulated within the service, but if independence is interpreted as moving out of CGT
facilities this raises questions about the appropriateness of terms such as ‘permanent’
accommodation. There is a need for this anomaly to be clarified so that the status of their
long-term security of tenure at CGT is transparent to tenants.

This issue is brought into sharp relief in the case of tenants who form partnerships or who
have children. Eligibility for STs is based on individual tenancies because CGT apartments
are not resourced for couples or families. This restricts intake eligibility and security of
tenure. The goal of moving tenants towards independence and normalisation should also
include entering into relationships and desiring family, but this is limited by these eligibility
criteria. CGT tenants would benefit from the availability of facilities that encourage physical
family integration without the loss of the support structures provided at CGT. Strategies
for achieving this may include partnering with alternative appropriate housing
accommodation providers and negotiating the on-going provision of support for tenants
with families.

CGT service provider and tenant respondents demonstrated disparity in their views on two
key residential issues. Firstly, CGT service provider respondents felt that feedback
mechanisms for tenants were adequate, expressing a sense of satisfaction with the steps
CGT and tenants had taken to ensure that tenant voices were heard (for example, TAG
meetings, feedback forms). A significant number of tenant respondents cited staff and
management as unresponsive to feedback provided. Service provider respondents had
some awareness of this and located any perception of a lack of response as motivated by
their concern to minimise tenants’ reliance on staff by requiring them to build their own
104
skills and independence. The tenant respondents, however, interpreted this as inaction by
staff, and felt their ideas were not heard. Secondly, service provider respondents generally
viewed the tenant mix as a healthy and positive feature that was an important contributor
to the success of the CGT model. The diversity of ages, ethnicities, and income
backgrounds was valued as a normalising experience for STs. However, most tenant
respondents expressed a sense of unease around the presence of the AHTs and
described feeling stereotyped by them, and an absence of social connection. This
difference in tenant and staff perceptions points to some communication barriers that may
need to be addressed.

The service objectives of CGT’s program detailed in the Funding Agreement are based on
the objectives of the NPAH. This evaluation found that these objectives are not sufficiently
nuanced to reflect or capture the full range of positive tenant outcomes, for all tenant
groups. For example, family reunification was not desired or sought by all tenants; nor was
paid employment, training or education available as an option, or desired by all tenants.
Non-systemic solutions such as volunteering were reported as a positive and viable option
in building social and other skills for some tenants. There may be scope for reshaping the
objectives of the program to more adequately reflect the values and priorities of clients as
identified in their case management plans.

There is scope to improve performance monitoring, quality assurance and program
innovation through more regular evaluation to ensure operational goals are being
addressed and targets are on track. This is especially important for a new service. Work is
also required to address shortfalls in data capture. Our review of existing datasets
indicates that:
o
The output performance specifications are fragmented across multiple data collections.
o
Output performance data does not always include indicators or targets commensurate
with the main purpose or objectives that define the service objectives. For example,
there are no indicators of the time taken to establish tenancies from point of service
entry. Additionally, the quality of the captured output data is in some cases poor with
high levels of únknown’ or óther’ category responses. This renders the reported data
ineffective for analysis. There is scope to improve response categories so that they
reduce the use of responses such as ‘other’ or ‘unknown’, or where this is not possible,
require open responses that provide more information.
o
There is scope to improve the Funding Agreement so that it provides more specific
indicators/targets from the primary activities/objectives and improves consistency
105
between the purpose of funding, strategic objectives and consumer outcomes. For
example, where the objective to provide services to support tenants towards reconnection with family is a key goal of the strategic objectives (2.2.3), it is not identified
in the purpose of funding or specified as a consumer outcome (2.2.4). Similarly,
support to assist tenants towards transition to independence is identified in two
consumer outcomes, but not identified in the purpose of funding.
o
The KPIs could be improved to ensure consistency across contractual instruments.
They currently appear in both the Funding and Residential Management Agreements.
This should improve compliance with reporting requirements as currently CGT reports
presented to Housing Tasmania inform only some of the KPIs. There is also scope to
improve the relevance of the indicators in order to monitor service delivery effectively.

CGT performance specifications have no integration with the larger system in which
CGT operates. For example, due to lack of data integration across funding agencies,
there is no means to assess the effectiveness of the CGT facilities in the broader
context of the provision of homelessness services. Therefore, the extent to which
specific services, such as CGT, alleviates the caseload capacity of other key
homelessness services (mental health, drug and alcohol services, other NGO
services) or impacts on the costs accrued by crisis and emergency services through
the reduction in access to these services, remains underutilised. This is a problem
acknowledged as national in scope; however, integration of CGT performance
specifications could provide some evidence of service effectiveness at a local level.
106
7 Recommendations to Stakeholders
Recommendations
CGT is a relatively new and innovative response to the housing of homeless people in the
broader Tasmanian landscape of supported accommodation facilities. Its staff demonstrate a
strong commitment to providing affordable and high quality housing along with quality support
services to vulnerable clients. They do this with the intention of affording tenants secure, longterm and sustainable tenancies through which to build independence, and improved health
and well-being. Innovation involves risk, trial and error, and to that extent we should expect
that CGT could sustain improvements to assist in more fully addressing the needs of current
and future clients in Tasmania.
1. Housing Tasmania should strengthen its oversight of CGT and tighten performance
management to ensure CGT delivers service outcomes as identified in the Funding
Agreement.
2. Housing Tasmania should review its arrangements for oversight of contractors to ensure
the contractor’s arrangements with third party providers will deliver service outcomes as
identified in the Funding Agreement.
3. To strengthen targeting of the homeless population:
3.1
Housing Tasmania should consider changing its funding arrangements with CGT
from block funding to activity based funding. The Funding Agreement should specify
levels of support need for allocations.
3.3
CGT should ensure robust, timely and transparent allocations of STs by improving
allocation timeframes, eligibility criteria and allocations tools.
Need assessments
should be consistent with Housing Connect’s assessment process and with
evidence-based industry practice for Housing First models of service provision.
They should include identifying level of support need. Referring services should be
provided with more detailed information on the reasons why a referral is rejected
and what would be required for the client to be allocated a tenancy.
4.
CGT should strengthen its collaboration and communication with the housing and
homelessness sector and develop strategies for achieving this. Housing Tasmania should
make evidence of service integration between CGT and the housing and homelessness
sector a Key Performance Indicator.
107
5.
To improve provision of support to tenants we recommend that:
5.1. CGT provide support arrangements that align with the Funding Agreement and the
principles of tenant support that underpin the Housing First model in relation to
continuity of support to exiting tenants with on-going support needs.
They should identify strategies for transitioning STs who currently have, or desire
family, including spouse and/or children, into stable and appropriate family housing
facilities without the loss of support.
5.2. CGT provide support arrangements that align with the Funding Agreement and the
principles of tenant support that underpin the Housing First model in relation to
service provision by personnel with experience, expertise and knowledge of, as well
as strong networks with, the homelessness service sector.
5.3. CGT ensure service specifications, including KPIs and funding arrangements,
between CGT and third party support providers, are in place prior to service
delivery.
5.4. CGT strengthen communication mechanisms between their support staff and STs
with reference to key service goals. CGT should engage in meaningful and timely
consultation and communication with STs about any proposed changes to tenant
support arrangements to ensure they understand any new arrangements.
5.5. Housing Tasmania should ensure the Funding Agreement with CGT makes
provisions for changes to the service model or service arrangements.
5.6. Housing Tasmania and CGT review the CGT service objectives to more accurately
reflect the goals and priorities of STs as identified in their case management plans.
This will enable the process of reporting against objectives to be meaningful and
have potential to improve practice. The updated service objectives should be
reflected in the Funding Agreement.
6. CGT should address the low occupancy rates amongst AHTs including reviewing its rent
setting model because of the potential impact on the financial viability of the SAF facilities.
7. CGT should provide STs with clear, accurate information about the permanent status of
their tenancy. This will require clarification about whether the objectives of CGT is to
provide permanent housing for STs or if supporting STs towards independent living
includes an expectation they will transition out of the facility into independent rental/home
ownership. The Funding Agreement should clarify the permanent status of the tenancies.
108
8. To improve monitoring and evaluation of service delivery we recommend that:
8.1. Housing Tasmania strengthen regular service monitoring of CGT. This may include
the introduction of six-monthly reviews of CGT over the next 18 months to ensure
operations align with Funding Agreement objectives and the needs of homeless
people in the state are being addressed in a timely and optimal way.
8.2. Monitoring should include reviewing the program logic and service outcomes for
their alignment with the objectives of the Housing First model of service delivery.
8.3. Housing Tasmania should tighten monitoring of CGT performance standards.
Current reporting requirements are not sufficiently comprehensive, and there are
gaps in KPIs as well as a lack of integration between datasets. We recommend that
the current output performance specifications for CGT are updated, and that
improvements are made to the internal consistency between purpose of funding,
strategic objectives and consumer outcomes. Indicators and targets should be
commensurate with the main purpose of the service.
8.4. To improve performance standards monitoring, Housing Tasmania should require
CGT to improve data capture. It should introduce into its Funding Agreement a
benchmark for maximum percentage levels for ‘’other/unknown entries’ in key
indicators. Where benchmarks are exceeded, Housing Tasmania should require
CGT to provide an explanation for this.
Housing Tasmania should ask the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to improve performance standards
monitoring under the Specialist Homelessness Services data collection so that data
collected informs evaluation and reporting of service delivery outputs and outcomes
more effectively than is presently the case. This should include reducing the use of
‘unknown’/’other’ response categories in service reports.
109
References
ACGA (2013) ‘State by state’, Australian Common Ground Alliance. Accessed 22 Jan, 2014:
http://www.commongroundaustralia.org.au/index.php/state-by-state.html
ACGA (2013) ‘About Supportive Housing’ Australian Common Ground Alliance. Accessed 10
Feb 2014: http://www.commongroundaustralia.org.au/index.php/common-ground/aboutsupportive-housing.html
AHURI (2013) Secure Housing Helps recovery from mental illness, Evidence Review 037,
accessed 10 Feb, 24: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/housing_information/review/evrev037
AIHW (2011) ‘Housing Assistance Services’ Chapter 9, Australias Welfare 2011, Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare. Accessed on 25 Feb 2014:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737420627
Atkinson, R; Habibis, D; Easthope, H & Goss, D (2007) 'Sustaining Tenants with Demanding
Behaviour: A review of the Research Evidence' (Positioning Paper) Melbourne: Australian
Housing and Research Institute.
Australian Government (2008) The road home: a national approach to reducing
homelessness, White Paper, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs, Canberra.
Bisset, H., Campbell, S. & Goodall, J. (1999) Appropriate Responses for Homeless People
Whose Needs Require a High Level and Complexity of Service Provision: Final Report,
Melbourne: Ecumenical Housing and Thomson Goodall Associates,
http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/house-SAAPreport.htm
Common Ground Org (2014) Accessed 18 Feb, 2014: http://www.commonground.org/
Common Ground (2014) Chronically Homeless accessed 03 Feb 2014:
http://www.commonground.org/who-we-serve/chronically-homeless
Common Ground Adelaide (2014) FAQ, Accessed online 13 Feb, 2014:
http://www.commongroundadelaide.org.au/node/5
Common Ground Tasmania (2013) Annual Report: 2011-2012. Accessed online 11 Feb 2014,
http://www.commongroundtas.com.au/images/file_store/Reports_2012/20112012ANNUALREPORT.pdf
Common Ground Tasmania (2013) ‘50/50 Campaign’. Accessed 22 Jan, 2014:
http://www.commongroundtas.com.au/50-50-campaign
Cronley, C, Petrovich, J, Spence-Almaguer, E and Preble, K (2013) ‘Do official
hospitalizations predict medical vulnerability among the homeless?: A postdictive Validity
Study of the vulnerability index’ Journal of health Care for the Poor and Underserved;
no.24(2).
110
DHHS (2009) Homelessness National Partnership implementation plan for Tasmania,
Department of Health and Human Services, Hobart.
DHHS (2010), Coming in from the cold: Tasmanian homelessness plan 2010-2013,
Department of Health and Human Services, Hobart.
DHHS (2012a) National Partnership on Homelessness Tasmanian Homelessness
Implementation Plan – Updated Version, Department of Health and Human Services, Hobart.
DHHS (2012b), Coming in from the cold: mid-term report April 2012, Department of Health
and Human Services, Hobart.
DHHS (2013) Tasmania Implementation Plan National Partnership Agreement on
Homelessness, accessed 7 Feb, 2014:
http://www.federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/content/npa/housing/homelessness/TAS_IP.pdf
DHHS (2013) Housing Connect Service Strategic Framework, Housing Connect, accessed
Feb 9, 2014:
http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/141861/Housing_Connect_Service_St
rategic_Framework.pdf
DHHS (2013) Housing Connect Service Operating Framework, Housing Connect, accessed
Feb 9, 2014:
http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/141862/Housing_Connect_Service_O
perating_Framework.pdf
DHHS (2013) Housing Connect Service Implementation Plan, Housing Connect, accessed
Feb 9, 2014:
http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/141863/Housing_Connect_Service_I
mplementation_Plan.pdf
Donoghue, J & Smalley, M (2012) ’50 Lives/50 Homes: The Tasmanian Primary Homeless
Campaign’, Parity, 25(6).
DSS (2013) National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) – household income (indexation),
Australian Government Department of Social Services. Accessed 11 Feb, 2014:
http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/housing-support/programs-services/national-rentalaffordability-scheme
Eardley, R, Thomposon, D., Cass, P., and Dadish, A. (2008) Measuring the impact of SAAPfunded homelessness services on client self-reliance, Report for the SAAP Coordination and
Development Committee, research commissioned through the Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
Flateau, P., Zaretzky,K., Brady, M., Haigh, Y. And Martin, R. (2008) The cost-effectiveness of
homelessness programs: a First assessment, Volume 1 – main report, Australian Housing and
Urban Research Institute.
Geller, G. & Kowalchuk, J. (2000) Supportive Housing Needs of Women with Mental Health
Issues, Regina, Canada: Social Policy Research Unit, University of Regina and the Regina
YWCA, http://www.uregina.ca/spr/pdfs/supportive_full.pdf
111
Government of SA (2011) ’Rosanne Haggerty: Housing Homeless People”, Adelaide Thinkers
in Residence, accessed 22 Jan, 2014:
http://www.thinkers.sa.gov.au/Thinkers/haggerty/Results.aspx.
Homelessness Australia (2011) ‘States of Being: Exploring the Links between homelessness,
mental illness, and psychological distress: An evidence based policy paper’ Homelessness
Australia. Accessed 25 Feb, 2014:
http://www.homelessnessaustralia.org.au/UserFiles/File/Policy/Policy%202012/States%20of%
20being%20evidence%20based%20policy%20paper%20mental%20illness%20and%20homel
essness%20for%20FaHCSIA(1).pdf
Hwang, S., Lebow, J., Bierer, M., O’Connell, J., Orav, E. and Brennan, T. 1998, ‘Risk Factors
for Death in Homeless Adults in Boston’, Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 158, pp.14541460.
Joffe, G., Chow, J., Heligman, T., Wilhelm, K., Collins, L., Giles, E., Lee, S., Goodwin, C., and
Cox, M. (2012) ‘The economic costs of sleeping rough: An estimation of the average
economic costs of homelessness as measured by utilisation of services over a 12 month
period’, Parity, Vol.25, No.6, September.
Johnsen, S & Teixeira, L (2010) ‘Staircases, Elevator and Cycles of Change: ‘Housing First’
and Other Housing Models for Homeless People with Complex Support Needs, Report: The
University of New York and Crisis, Accessed 18 Feb 2014:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Housing%20Models%20Report.pdf
Johnson, G., Parkinson, S., and Parsell, C. (2012) Policy shift or program drift? Implementing
Housing First in Australia, Final Report No.184, Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute: Melbourne.
Liou, A, Nutt, C, Dunnham, A & Sanchez, M (2011) ‘Approaches to Homelessness
Prevention’, PRS Policy Brief 1011-10. Accessed 18 Feb 2014:
http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/housingfinalreportprsrgs.pdf
Mackenzie, D. and Chamberlain, C. (2003) Homeless Careers: Pathways In and Out of
Homelessness, report from the Counting the Homeless 2001 Project, Swinburne and RMIT
Universities.
Mclaughlin, T (2010) ‘Using Common Themes: Cost-Effectiveness of Permanent Supported
Housing for People with Mental Illness’, Research on Social Work Practice, vol.21 p404.
Parcell, C; Fitzpatrick, S & BuschGeertsema, V (2013) ‘Common Ground in Australia: An
Object Lesson in Evidence Heirarchies and Policy Transfer’, Housing Studies, DOI:
10.1080/02673037.2013.824558
Reynolds, F & Fearn, E (2012) ‘Progress with Common Ground Approaches in Australia’,
ACGA Conference Presentation accessed online 12 Feb, 2014:
http://www.homelessnessnsw.org.au/uploads/50463/ufiles/Conference/CG_presentation_Hom
elessness_NSW_Conference_Reynolds_Fearn_2012.pdf
Seelig, T. & Jones, A. (2004) “Sustaining Tenancies in Public Housing: Motives, issues and
options”, Parity, 17(10) and Housing Works, 2(2).
112
Stefancic, A. and Tsemberis, S. (2007) ‘Housing First for long-term shelter dwellers with
psychiatric disabilities in a suburban county: a four-year study of housing access and
retention’. Journal of Primary Prevention, 28, 265-279.
TAO (Tasmanian Audit Office) (2013) Report of the Auditor-General No. 8 of 2012-13 National
Partnership Agreement on Homelessness, March, Hobart.
Tsemberis, S. & Amussen, S. (1999) ‘From Streets to Homes: The pathways to housing
consumer preference supported housing model’, Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 17(1-2), pp.
113-31.
113
APPENDIX A: Common Ground eligibility criteria New York,
South Australia and New South Wales
New York Common Ground:
Common Ground New York has implemented three key programs to address different needs
sectors of homelessness: the ‘Street to Home’ program is for those physically and mentally at
risk; the ‘Brownsville Partnership’ is directed towards the homeless in need of educational and
legal assistance) and ‘Homelink’ assists homeless families.
Common Ground in New York partners with ‘Street to Home’, an initiative employing an
assertive engagement, systematic method by which to identify and prioritise the chronically
homeless (who have been sleeping rough for the longest and who are identified as having the
highest risk of premature death on the streets), assess and negotiate housing options with
those identified, and then house and retain those individuals in permanent housing (Liou et. al
2011).
Common Ground (through the Street to Home program) utilises resources such as a registry
to identify those who live permanently on the streets, and the VI index to measure risk factors
and vulnerability. The program also employs community outreach workers to gain the trust of
the chronically homeless and offer housing without conditions (for example, sobriety). Each
year, Common Ground makes contact with more than 1,000 street homeless people and
connects at least 300 people to housing and support services (medical, psychiatry,
counselling and essential supports). Individual focus on needs has resulted in over 90 per
cent of housing placements remaining stable and less than 1 per cent eviction rate (Common
Ground org 2014).
Since the development of the Street to Home program, Common Ground has discovered that
its own eligibility criteria has proved prohibitive for many homeless people they were coming
into contact with. Consequently, intake criteria was adapted, including removing exemptions
for people with recent housing evictions or felony convictions; removing requirements for
sobriety, compliance with mental health treatment, or full disclosure and consistent responses
during intake (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010).
Adelaide Common Ground:
To be eligible for housing, people must meet the following requirements (Common Ground
Adelaide, 2014):

Be a single adult aged 18 years or older

Be a resident of South Australia

Not own a residential property

Be able to pay rent

Have an independent income, for example, be receiving Centrelink payments, or
working, or both
114

Your income must not be greater than $45,496 per year

Be able to abide by the Tenancy Agreement

Be able to live independently – not need in-home care

Be willing to be involved in the Common Ground Community, which is about
contributing to the program, either by sharing your ideas, taking part in or leading
community activities.
Common Ground Adelaide maintains a housing application register.
recorded in the CHCR (Community Housing Central Register).
Applications are
Before being offered housing with Common Ground, people are contacted for a housing
interview. They may also be requested to provide the contact details of two other people to be
a referee.
Following the housing assessment, applications will be placed in the following categories:

At Risk.

Single adults who are homeless, at risk of becoming homeless, rough sleepers,
boarding house residents, shelter and transitional housing users, couch surfers

At risk with complex needs- single adults with a diagnosed substance use disorder,
serious mental illness or a disability.

Low Income- single adults earning up to $45,496 per year, including people who are
unemployed, studying, part-time and full-time workers.
Common Ground Sydney / Camperdown:
Eligibility for housing at Common Ground Camperdown includes (Reynolds & Fearn 2012):
1. Residing in the Inner City area
2. Over the age of 18 years;
3. Experiencing primary homelessness (for a period greater than 6 (six) months continuously);
4. Eligible for priority approved social housing under Housing Pathways;
5. Vulnerable or at risk (i.e. have a significant health issue, disability, mental illness, substance
misuse disorder, etc);
6. Suited to congregate apartment living with available onsite support;
7. Understand that children under the age of 18 years are not permitted to live in the building;
8. Understand that the building is pet-friendly, and be accepting of animals residing in the
building
115
APPENDIX B: Interview Schedules
Support co-ordinator
Consent obtained. Recorder on.
1. Can you describe your role as the support co-ordinator at CGT? What does your job
entail?
2. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the Common Ground model for
residents?
3. How does the relationship between support staff and the tenancy manager or concierge
work?

Have you experienced any problems with communication or collaboration between
you?

How are these problems addressed?
4. Can you tell me about your understanding of the need to separate Tenancy Management
from Support Services Provision as part of the Common Ground model of Supported
Accommodation Facilities?
5. Can you describe the intensity, the duration and the type of support provided to residents
of Common Ground?

When does support begin for new tenants?

What case management plan and assessment tools do you use?

How often are outcomes assessed?

Is there anything you would improve about the support process?
6. Do you think the facility has been successful in terms of providing:

Safe, secure and affordable housing?

Opportunities for a range of employment and training options?

Opportunities for social connect or family reunification?

Linkages with a range of health and support services?
116
7. Can you identify key ways that the service might be improved to improve client outcomes
relating to stable tenancy, health, housing, training, life skills and independence?
8. Can you tell me about the changes since Anglicare have exited as support providers?

Has this had any consequences for STs?
9. Have you experienced any difficulties or challenges in providing support to residents?
10. Are there any client groups that pose particular challenges for service delivery?
11. Are there any groups or individuals who do not benefit from this type of secure, supportive
accommodation?
12. How important is the relationship between the support worker, tenancy manager and
concierge/security?

Have you experienced any problems with communication or collaboration?

Could you describe any factors that have facilitated or hindered this collaboration?
13. Do you require any additional support in order to increase your capacity to support
residents?
14. What more do you think could be done to improve this service and support services
generally for people with high and complex needs whose tenancies are at risk?
15. How do you deal with the interaction between the goals of long-term / permanent housing
for those at risk of homelessness and the concurrent goal of moving people toward
independence and out of supportive accommodation?
16. What do you think are the most important factors that cause a service intervention to
succeed or fail?
17. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Thank you for participating – we appreciate your time and contribution to this project.
117
Tenancy Manager
Consent obtained. Recorder on.
1. Can you describe your role as tenancy manager of CGT?
2. What does your job entail (typical tasks)?
3. What training have you received to undertake this role?
4. What is your understanding of the CGT model of Supportive Accommodation?
5. Can you tell me about your understanding of the need to separate Tenancy Management
from Support Services Provision as part of the Common Ground model of Supportive
Accommodation Facilities?
6. How closely do you work with CGT and the other services employed by CGT?
7. How important is the relationship between the tenancy manager and the onsite support
worker?

Have you experienced any problems with communication or collaboration?

Could you describe any factors that facilitated or hindered this collaboration?
8. Can you tell me the process of supporting new STs to reach a good understanding of their
rights and responsibilities as tenants of Common Ground?
9. What difficulties or challenges do you face in providing tenancy management to residents?

For example, wilful damage to property, rent arrears

How were these issues addressed?

Does CGT become in involved in these issues?
10. Does the mix of client groups with varied levels of tenancy support needs pose particular
challenges for tenancy management?
11. What is the process around repairs and/or maintenance in the CGT facilities? (E.g who
attends to this; timeframes, satisfaction reporting etc.)
12. Do you think CGT has been successful in terms of providing:

Safe, secure and affordable housing?

Opportunities for a range of employment and training options?
118

Opportunities for social connect or family reunification?

Linkages with a range of health and support services?
13. Are there any groups or individuals who do not benefit from this type of secure, supported
accommodation?
14. Are there any client groups that pose particular challenges for service delivery? How
might this be addressed?
15. Can you identify key ways that the service might be improved to improve client outcomes
relating to stable tenancy, health, housing, training, life skills and independence?
16. What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of the Common Ground model?
What are the advantages and disadvantages for clients?
17. What more do you think could be done to improve support services for people with high
and complex needs whose tenancies are at risk?
18. Are there any barriers to increasing security of tenure for Common Ground tenants? If so,
what are they?
19. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Thank you for participating – we appreciate your time and contribution to this project.
119
CGT Supported Tenants
Background:
Ascertain age, partner or no partner.
Tenancy at Common Ground:
1. How long have you been living at Common Ground?
2. How did you find out about Common Ground?
3. What other accommodation options were available to you at the time?
4. Was it easy getting a place at Common Ground?


Did you have to wait?
Do you think Common Ground could make any improvements to the application
process for tenants?
5. Where were you living before moving into Common Ground?
6. Can you tell me about living at Common Ground?



What are the best things about living at Common Ground?
Is there anything that you don’t like about living at Common Ground?
Is there anything you would like to change about living at Common Ground?
7. Have you experienced any problems with your tenancy at Common Ground – any
concerns about rent arrears, property damage, neighbour disputes?


If so, how were those problems handled?
Were satisfied with the outcome?
8. How important is having security and a concierge at Common Ground? What services do
they provide?
9. Were you informed about what it would be like to live at Common Ground, when you were
deciding to move in?
10. How have you found living in a community environment? Have you experienced any
problems relating to maintaining your privacy?
11. Do you get involved with social or community events at Common Ground?



If so, what are you involved in?
Is this an important part of your social life at Common Ground?
What else would you get involved with if it were offered?
Support at Common Ground:
I now want to ask you about the support you receive at Common Ground:
120
12. Do you have regular access to a support worker? How often?
13. How has the support worker helped you?



Has the support available at Common Ground helped you to get in touch and stay
in touch with people you like to spend time with (family/friends/community)?
Has the support available at Common Ground helped to improve your health?
Have you been doing any education or training courses since moving in?
14. Has any part of the support provided at Common Ground been difficult, upsetting or
intrusive? If so, can you think of anything that could have improved the situation?
15. Do you think the help that you have received at Common Ground has made you feel better
about your life? If so, how? If not, why not?
16. How much of the improvement in your life do you think is due to Common Ground –
including stable accommodation and support, and how much from other things?
17. Overall, do you think you have received enough support, not enough or too much?
18. How are you treated by staff working at Common Ground?
19. Do you think you could have received the same kind of help from a different service?
20. If you could change anything you wanted about the help you have received from the staff
at Common Ground, what might that be?
21. How long do you anticipate staying at Common Ground?
22. Is there anything else that you would like to add?
Thank you for participating – we appreciate your time and contribution to this project
121
APPENDIX D: Service activities and program performance
measures
Table 1: Service Activities
Service
Establishment
Establish supported accommodation facilities at:
Barrack Street/Liverpool Street Hobart
Campbell Street Hobart
Administrative
Documentation
Property
Management
and
Client
Support
Develop and implement policies guidelines and procedures with Housing Tasmania
that include:

Eligibility, intake assessment, waitlist management

Rent setting, collection and arrears management

Tenancy management

Appeals, complaints and dispute resolution

Facility security policy and processes
Provide general facility management functions including:

24 hour staff coverage (regular work hours + after hours on call)

Maintenance services and planning

Obtain property insurance and public liability insurance

Property repairs
Deliver client support services including:

Psycho-social assessment of client suitability, level of need and allied
support services requirements

Case management planning, identification of client aspirations and
service response strategies

Coordinated access to allied services

Life coaching and practical skills development for independent living

Exit planning

Measurement of pre and post service intervention indicators of
trauma, mental and physical health, family and community inclusion

Pre-discharge planning and handover and allied support services
liaison
Additional
Activities
Required
Respond to and align with initiatives of the NAHA, NPs and other reforms including:
as

Common assessment and allocation framework

Tasmanian Housing Register

National Quality Framework

National data collection
122
Program Performance Measures
Safe
Environment
Consumer
Focus












Workforce




Incident
Feedback


Consumer
Information



Governance
Service
Specialist
Standards
Obligations











Is fire compliant
Is food safety compliant
Safe medications management
Adheres to health and safety requirement
Active engagement in health and wellbeing of consumers
Engagement in processes supportive of consumer lifestyle needs
Responsive to consumer cultural needs
Supportive of consumer community inclusion
Possess processes in support of consumer safety
Possess processes to manage consumer finances and assets
Engagement in processes supportive of consumer rights and
responsibilities
Possess processes in support of co-ordination and appropriate
service delivery to consumers
Possess robust staff recruitment, induction and orientation processes
Possess professional development priorities supportive of attaining
consumer outcomes
Active management of future workforce requirements
Possess clearly defined role expectations and accountabilities for all
staff and volunteers
Possess robust compliments and complaints management processes
Adherence to incident monitoring systems policy
Possess robust systems for collection of consumer information
Possess robust systems to ensure consumer privacy and
confidentiality
Possess robust systems for managing consumer personal
information
Possess clearly articulated vision and set of values
Possess systems to support inclusive decision making
Possess and effective policy cycle
Provision of financial reports in accord with Funding Agreement
Possess systems to identify emerging legislative requirements
Possess risk management systems and processes
Possess robust communications processes
Case planning occurs for each consumer
Financial Accountability Reporting
Service Delivery Reporting
Quality and Safety Standards Framework Reporting
123
124