FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A
COMMON GROUND IN THE ACT
May 2012
1
Table of Contents
Part 1: Literature Review Findings and Consultation Feedback ................................. 8
1. 1 Literature Review Findings ............................................................................. 8
1.1.1 Core elements of Housing First................................................................. 8
1.1.2 Targets ..................................................................................................... 9
1.1.3 Service Models ......................................................................................... 9
1.1.4 Cost benefits........................................................................................... 10
1.1.5 Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 10
1.2 Consultation Feedback .................................................................................. 11
1.2.1 Accommodation ...................................................................................... 11
1.2.2 Allocations .............................................................................................. 12
1.2.3 Service Model ......................................................................................... 13
1.2.4 Security .................................................................................................. 14
1.2.5 Evaluation ............................................................................................... 14
1.2.6 Systemic Collaboration ........................................................................... 14
Part 2: Jurisdictional Analysis of Common Ground Models...................................... 15
2.1 Overview of Other Models in Australia ........................................................... 15
2.1.1 Victoria ................................................................................................... 15
2.1.2 Tasmania ................................................................................................ 16
2.1.3 South Australia ....................................................................................... 18
2.1.4 New South Wales ................................................................................... 19
2.1.5 Queensland ............................................................................................ 21
2.2 Key findings from other jurisdictions .............................................................. 22
2.2.1 Tenant mix .............................................................................................. 22
2.2.2 Concierge ............................................................................................... 22
2.2.3 Tenancy Management ............................................................................ 23
2.2.4 On-site Supports ..................................................................................... 23
2.2.5 Physical Space ....................................................................................... 24
Part 3: Data Analysis and Review of Existing Services ............................................ 25
3.1 Data Analysis ................................................................................................ 25
3.1.1 National Data .......................................................................................... 25
3.1.2 ACT Data ................................................................................................ 25
3.1.3 Street to Home Data ............................................................................... 27
3.1.4 Toora Day Refuge Data .......................................................................... 28
3.1.5 First Point Data ....................................................................................... 29
3.1.6 Data summary ........................................................................................ 30
3.2 Existing Services ........................................................................................... 31
3.2.1 Programs targeting unaccompanied persons with complex needs .......... 31
3.2.2 Programs targeted at families ................................................................. 34
3.2.3 Summary of Existing Services ................................................................ 35
Part 4: Service Model .............................................................................................. 36
4.1 Service Specifics ........................................................................................... 36
4.1.1 Tenant Mix .............................................................................................. 36
4.1.2 Safety ..................................................................................................... 37
4.1.3 Tenancy Management ............................................................................ 37
4.1.4 Onsite supports ...................................................................................... 39
4.2 Systemic Management Arrangements and Responsibilities ........................... 40
4.2.1 Identification and allocation of Common Ground tenancies..................... 40
4.2.2 Governance ............................................................................................ 42
4.2.3 Integrated Service Delivery ..................................................................... 42
Part 5: Physical Accommodation ............................................................................. 43
5.1 Requirements for the Physical Form .............................................................. 43
5.1.1 Quality .................................................................................................... 43
5.1.2 Security .................................................................................................. 44
2
5.1.3 Integrated Spaces................................................................................... 44
5.1.4 Service/Program Spaces ........................................................................ 44
5.1.4 Location .................................................................................................. 45
5.1.5 Scale ...................................................................................................... 45
5.2 Site Options ................................................................................................... 47
5.2.1 St Johns Site Reid .................................................................................. 47
5.2.2 Community Facilities Land in Hackett ..................................................... 50
5.2.3 Surplus Property in Belconnen................................................................ 52
5.2.4 Summary of Site Options ........................................................................ 53
Part 6: Financial Modelling ...................................................................................... 54
6.1 Funding Requirements .................................................................................. 54
6.1.1 Capital Funding Needs ........................................................................... 54
6.1.2 Recurrent Funding Needs ....................................................................... 54
6.1.3 Additional First Year Expenses ............................................................... 55
6.2 Cost/Benefit Analysis ..................................................................................... 56
6.2.1 Reduced Emergency Service Use .......................................................... 56
6.2.2 Cost Comparison with Existing Accommodation Models ......................... 57
6.3 Identification of Financial Challenges............................................................. 58
6.3.1 Ongoing Security Needs ......................................................................... 58
6.3.2 Set Up of Units and Common Spaces..................................................... 58
6.3.3 Brokering Additional Services ................................................................. 58
6.3.4 Reliance on Affordable Housing Rental Returns ..................................... 59
6.4 Partnership Opportunities .............................................................................. 59
6.4.1 Other Directorates and Mainstream Services.......................................... 59
6.4.2 Commonwealth Government .................................................................. 60
6.4.3 Private Business and Philanthropic ......................................................... 60
6.4.4 Common Ground Canberra and ACGA. .................................................. 61
Part 7: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................ 62
7.1 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 62
7.2 Recommendations......................................................................................... 63
Appendix A: Literature Review on Housing First...................................................... 65
Appendix B: Jurisdictional Comparisons.................................................................. 79
Appendix C: Common Ground Consultations .......................................................... 87
Appendix D: Additional Resources .......................................................................... 88
3
Executive Summary
Addressing homelessness has been a long term commitment of the ACT
Government with a range of new initiatives implemented under the National
Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH) that built upon work
already under taken by the ACT Government through the 2004 Homelessness
Strategy- Breaking the Cycle. This strategy focused on four strategic themes:
• Integrated and Effective Service Responses;
• Client Focus and Outcomes;
• Access to Appropriate Housing and Housing Assistance; and
• Supporting and Driving Innovation and Excellence.
In 2008, the strategy was further enhanced by the launch of the ACT
Homelessness Charter which recognises that people experiencing
homelessness should have the right to inclusion, dignity, respect,
non-discrimination, safety and freedom.
In 2009, the ACT Government released The Road Map- a discussion paper
on the way forward for homelessness and related services in the ACT. The
paper highlights the reform priority to move towards a Housing First approach
where possible, recognising that wrap around supports are needed to ensure
long-term positive outcomes for individuals and families who have
experienced homelessness (ACT Department of Disability, Housing and
Community Services (DHCS) 2009:7).
In this context it is recognised that Housing First without support does not lead
to positive long term outcomes for the most vulnerable in our community. In
many cases, the most vulnerable people require long term rather than time
limited supports with some requiring life long support to sustain a tenancy on
their own.
Collectively, the rights based approach along with the ACT Government’s
continuing commitment to addressing homelessness will be needed to move
towards a Housing First model that adequately recognises that addressing
homelessness requires more than providing a roof over somebody’s head.
Chronically homeless people usually present with a range of significantly
disabling conditions, including biological and psychological health conditions,
substance addictions, and physical and emotional conditions caused by
domestic and street violence.
Dr Andrew Davies from the Perth based Mobile GP service notes that
homelessness can be caused by poor health. Likewise homelessness can
also cause or exacerbate health conditions. Because of this, chronically
homeless people live an average of 38.7 years less than the general
Australian public, with a life expectancy of just 43.3 years of age (Davies, A:
2011).
Wentworth Community Housing Coordinator Stephanie Brennan also notes
that the majority of chronically homeless people supported into
4
accommodation have significant affects associated with trauma and mental
illness. The complex issues associated with chronic homelessness lead to
early onset of age related conditions and exacerbate the need to rely on
emergency services such as hospitals, psychiatric inpatient units, and
community treatment teams.
The ACT Human Rights Act 2004 notes that “Everyone has the right to life. In
particular, no-one may be arbitrarily deprived of life”. Given the connection
between chronic homelessness and significantly reduced life expectancy, the
imperative to end chronic homelessness is particularly strong.
This imperative is supported by the Community Services Directorate’s Human
Rights Policy that recognises that particular target groups are especially
vulnerable (including people with serious physical or mental health issues),
requiring the fair allocation of resources to those most in need (CSD: 2011, pp
5-6).
The Common Ground model, originally developed by Roseanne Haggerty in
New York in 1990, seeks to reach those in highest need, providing permanent
housing with assertive on site support in newly converted inner city
apartments.
The original model used a partnership framework to redevelop abandoned
hotels into affordable housing sites catering for 50% low income and 50%
previously homeless tenants.
The Common Ground model is based on the Housing First philosophy and
aims to address long term, chronic homelessness by providing housing first
with on-site and assertive supports available to flexibly meet the needs of
individuals accommodated.
Today, Common Ground models have been developed throughout the US
and Australia, and provide permanent housing options with on site support to
meet the needs of highly vulnerable people experiencing long term, chronic
homelessness.
Despite the reported success of the Common Ground model in the US and in
other parts of Australia, establishing a Common Ground in the ACT would
require careful planning and evaluation of the suitability of the model to meet
the needs of the ACT community.
In 2011, The ACT Government announced a funding allocation of $150,000 to
conduct a feasibility study into establishing a Common Ground model in the
ACT.
5
The study has been conducted in the following stages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thematic analysis of the literature on Housing First service models
such as Common Ground;
Jurisdictional analysis of Common Ground models established or
under construction in Australia;
Analysis of ACT homelessness data and existing accommodation
services;
Development of service model options, including accommodation,
support services, and systemic requirements;
Financial modeling, including capital and recurrent funding
requirements, cost benefit analysis and identification of financial
challenges;
Partnership opportunities, including philanthropic, government and
business contributions; and
Development of final recommendations.
As part of the feasibility study, site visits to Common Ground models in
Melbourne, Hobart, Adelaide and Sydney were carried out. Meetings were
also held with a range of stakeholders and interested organisations, including
the Australian Common Ground Alliance, Common Ground Canberra and
representatives from the ACT Homelessness Sector. A list of consultations is
provided at Appendix C.
A steering committee comprised of government, community and business
sector representatives was established to guide the study. The committee met
regularly to discuss the stages outlined above, along with other issues that
developed over the course of the study.
The report follows the structure outlined in the above list of stages, to provide
for a thorough understanding of the issues and requirements associated with
establishing a Common Ground in the ACT. In particular, the report outlines a
proposed model for an ACT Common Ground. A summary of the option is
provided in Part 7 Conclusions and Recommendations. The committee
considered both this and a larger scale option. Based on the information
outlined in section 5.1.5 (scale), only one option has been presented in this
report.
In addition, the report provides a range of recommendations for an ACT
Common Ground. Most notably, the report recommends that a Common
Ground model should be considered by the ACT Government to assist in
addressing chronic homelessness for highly vulnerable people. Further
recommendations are linked under the following core themes:
1. Service Model recommendations
The Service Model components recommended outline the intended target for
an ACT Common Ground, including consideration of the appropriate tenant
mix between low income and previously homeless tenants. The proposed
6
target is singles and couples without children, over 18 years of age and
experiencing chronic homelessness.
The recommendation further notes that the service model should focus on
connecting tenants with mainstream services where possible and should
maintain a separation between tenancy management and support worker
roles. A Program Officer role was also recommended to ensure coordination
of social inclusion and engagement activities for Common Ground tenants.
The ability to transfer out of Common Ground was noted as important for
ensuring long term positive outcomes for previously homeless tenants, with a
diverse entry point system considered important for the identification of
vulnerable people.
2. Physical Form recommendations
Ensuring adequate physical safety was considered important, including the
provision of CCTV cameras in common and program spaces, swipe card
access, and a single entry point. Ensuring line of sight throughout common
spaces was also noted as an important design feature for a Common Ground.
The recommendation highlights the need to ensure each unit contains
independent bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities, with one bedroom
apartments preferred over bed sits or two bedroom options.
It is further recommended that the physical form contain a range of spaces
that allow for social inclusion activities and casual interaction, along with
dedicated program and service spaces to support on-site activities.
3. Funding Model recommendations
The Funding Model components recommended for the Common Ground
include consideration of rental payments and remittances to Housing ACT,
with a portion of affordable rental payments to be retained by the service
provider to offset part of the operational expenses.
The capital, recurrent and initial funding requirements are outlined in the
report.
4. Partnership Framework recommendations
The Partnership Framework components recommended allow for a
coordinated effort to address chronic homelessness that includes a range of
ACT Government Directorates delivering services to vulnerable Canberrans,
along with community, business and philanthropic organizations.
Partnership with the Commonwealth Government is also highlighted as
important in order to establish a successful Common Ground model in the
ACT.
A full outline of recommendations is included in Part 7 of this report.
7
Part 1: Literature Review Findings and
Consultation Feedback
1. 1 Literature Review Findings
A literature review on the Housing First approach to addressing
homelessness is included at Appendix A of this report. The review identified
the following key themes relevant to an analysis of the approach and the
implications for establishing a Common Ground Supportive- Housing First
model in the ACT:
•
•
•
•
•
Core elements of Housing First;
Targets;
Service models, including accommodation and supports;
Cost benefits; and
Effectiveness.
1.1.1 Core elements of Housing First
The literature review identified that the core elements of Common Ground
Housing First models are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Permanence- there is no time limit on tenure (for formally homeless
tenants);
Safety- usually a 24 hour concierge service is provided to ensure
security of access;
Supportive- On site support services are provided free of charge;
Integrated- there is a tenant mix of previously homeless and low
income renters;
Affordable- rent is paid at no more than 30% of income; and
Quality- services operate from high quality and sustainably designed
complexes. (Gilmore and Wheaden, 2010:16)
These elements are consistent with the Australian Common Ground Alliance
Guidelines and it is necessary to ensure that a Common Ground model in the
ACT meets the standards required by the alliance to be considered a
Common Ground.
The literature review further highlighted that a key feature of Common Ground
Housing First models is the separation of tenancy and support functions (Jope
2010:17). By separating access to housing from clinical compliance, the model
aims to create an environment of physical stability from which further stability
in one’s mental and emotional wellbeing can develop over time.
8
1.1.2 Targets
The literature review identified three target groups suitable for a Housing First
model, noting that each group requires a range of different supports and
accommodation options.
Older homeless people were identified as particularly disadvantaged,
especially where mental illness, physical and cognitive impairment impact
upon the capacity of individuals to sustain independent tenancies (FaHCSIA
2008:61).
The review highlighted the need to ensure older persons’ accommodation is
located close to transport and services, and provides a range of supports
including house keeping, laundry and opportunities for regular check ins (Jope
2010:30-31).
The review also identified people with mental illness both with and without
substance abuse issues as suitable for a Common Ground model. While
program evidence reported successful outcomes in both housing retention
and reduced substance use for individuals with both mental illness and
substance addictions, substance use was not reduced significantly for those
with substance addictions alone.
This highlights the need to ensure care when accommodating individuals with
substance addictions alone within a Common Ground Housing model.
Finally, the review identified homeless families as experiencing increased
disadvantage due to the impact of multiple transitions, particularly on children
(DHCS 2010:17). It should also be noted that families represent the largest
homelessness group in the ACT context.
The review further notes that accommodation for families must allow for
children’s recreation with support services available to assist with access to
childcare, after school programs, and family focused health and counseling
services (Jope 2010: 27). The review notes that scattered sites or small
residential complexes are most suitable for families (Jope 2010), suggesting
that appropriate consideration of the physical accommodation needs of
families must be considered in a separate Housing First model targeting this
group.
1.1.3 Service Models
a) Accommodation
The literature review identifies a range of accommodation types suitable for
Housing models. Common Ground models operate from a scattered single
site model in which various apartments dedicated to the target group are
scattered through out a complex but are not readily recognisable.
9
This model allows for normalising and community integration within the
broader complex. Given the vulnerability of residents and the complexity of
issues that chronically homeless people experience, the review highlights the
importance of adequate security in Common Ground models ( Gordon
2007:3).
The review further identifies that while large scale complexes create economic
efficiencies, high-density complexes are not the preferred model for people
with significant disabilities (O’Hare and Day, 2001:11).
b) Supports
The literature review highlights the need to provide flexible supports in
recognition that different people will require different levels of support and for
different periods of time (FaHCSIA 2008:47). The review also notes that wrap
around support that ensures the coordination of all services required to meet
individual needs is required.
Given that accommodation in Common Ground models is not contingent on
acceptance of support, the literature review identifies on-site, long-term
assertive support as an important service element (Gordon 2007:3).
The review also identifies social inclusion activities and access to life skills/
work skills training and employment services as important to encourage
community engagement for Common Ground tenants (Gordon 2007:4).
1.1.4 Cost benefits
The literature review highlights that cost benefit analysis from other
jurisdictions suggest that addressing homelessness through a Common
Ground model could reduce the costs associated with the use of emergency
and related services.
The review notes however that further investigation into the actual costs of
homelessness and mainstream emergency services in the ACT is required in
order to conduct an accurate cost benefit analysis for establishing a Common
Ground model. This issue will be discussed in Part 6 of this report Financial
Modelling.
1.1.5 Effectiveness
The literature review found that housing retention rates were significantly
increased in Housing First models compared to Treatment First models, which
required compliance with treatment plans and support programs. The review
further found that models that did not require the acceptance of support did not
negatively impair the recovery of individuals with mental illness or substance
addictions (Liou, Nutt, Dunham & Sanchez 2011:7).
While the literature is divided on the relative merits of dispersed versus
apartment complex based models, research suggests that social wellbeing
10
was increased through models operating from multi-unit complexes with
appropriate levels of on-site support, due to the frequency of both formal and
informal interaction between tenants and support workers (Kresky-Wolfe et.al.
2010, cited in Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:11).
The review concluded that establishing an effective Common Ground model
for the ACT context would require consideration of the homelessness
population demographics to determine which sub-group or groups will be
targeted and which relating service model would most effectively meet their
needs. These issues will be discussed throughout this feasibility study report.
1.2 Consultation Feedback
Throughout the duration of the feasibility study, a range of consultations were
held with key stakeholders and interested organisations including the
Australian Common Ground Alliance, the Canberra Common Ground Group
and the specialist homelessness sector workers and services in the ACT. A
full list of consultations conducted is included at Appendix C.
Feedback received through the consultation process can be categorized
according to the following key themes:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accommodation;
Allocations;
Service Model;
Security;
Evaluation; and
Systemic Collaboration
1.2.1 Accommodation
Feedback received consistently highlighted the importance of providing a high
quality and affordable accommodation option for chronically homeless people.
It was also noted that affordability for low income earners that are not eligible
for social housing is an issue that could be addressed by a Common Ground
model.
The importance of ensuring that the physical design blends with the
community was promoted, suggesting that smaller scale sites are preferred
over large scale, multi-unit complexes. In general, townhouse models or one
bedroom units were preferred over bedsits or shared accommodation
designs.
The involvement of service providers in the design was highlighted as
important, along with the need to ensure minimal access points to the
complex.
Sector representatives raised concerns over the development of a new
complex, suggesting that existing complexes such as Ainslie Village or
11
Havelock House could instead be redeveloped. It was noted that such sites
require major upgrades but that stable communities are already established
that would benefit from the increased security and support that a Common
Ground model would provide.
There were mixed views on the provision of secure tenure. Although it is a
core element of the Common Ground model, some respondents noted that
security of tenure can lead to tenant complacency and can prevent
engagement with support services.
1.2.2 Allocations
The majority of feedback was received in relation to the allocation of Common
Ground tenancies. The need to ensure a diverse tenant mix was promoted
consistently, including the need to ensure a mix of both high and low needs
tenancies.
It was generally agreed that the model should target those most vulnerable
who would usually miss out on accessing housing through the usual system,
rather than attempting to solve all housing issues.
The use of a vulnerability index tool was highlighted, as well as the need to
ensure a different identification and allocation process to the usual
homelessness system. It was suggested that this would cater to people who
do not have the ability, social skills, comprehension or willingness to negotiate
the normal channels.
It was suggested that allocation of properties to highly vulnerable people
should be responsive to the individual’s willingness to accept support at a
given time. It was suggested that support services should be able to identify
appropriate referrals using a simple eligibility tool, such as a vulnerability
checklist system, and that limited evidence should be required given the
urgency of their situations.
The issue of housing readiness was raised in relation to chronically homeless
people being willing to move into permanent accommodation. In addition, it
was noted that processes for the identification of homeless women would
need to be considered given that women tend to remain hidden from the
rough sleeping population for a range of reasons.
While there was some inconsistency in regards to the accommodation of
children in a Common Ground model, the majority of respondents urged
against this form of accommodation for children due to the complexity of
issues that chronically homeless people may have.
An off-site or split site model was proposed for families with children, noting
that while long term accommodation options were needed for this target
group, a Common Ground model may not be the most suitable option due to
the long term impacts on children of witnessing abusive behaviors which can
occur with high and complex needs tenants.
12
It was suggested that where children are involved, some level of mutual
obligation to engage with support would be more suitable, particularly where
drug and alcohol issues are present within the family unit.
It was suggested that the lack of mutual obligation for families with children
would reduce the potential target to low needs families who would not fit with
the high vulnerability target of Common Ground. It was also suggested that
the existing transitional housing model may be more effective for this target
group.
The ability to provide safe places for children to visit parents on-site was
however highlighted, noting that single fathers experiencing homelessness
often have limited options for accessing their children due to the
inappropriateness of accommodation options available.
Given that allocation of Common Ground tenancies is likely to be out of turn,
fair and transparent guidelines were suggested to ensure that allocation is
made for exceptional circumstances only, and not treated as a short cut into
public housing.
1.2.3 Service Model
Feedback received highlight that the separation of tenancy management and
support was an important element. The interrelation of both functions was
also noted, suggesting that support is required to assist tenants with complex
needs to sustain tenancies on their own.
The lack of mutual obligation was raised as a concern for the long term
stability of people with high and complex needs. It was suggested that the
allocation of housing out of turn could create a reasonable expectation that
tenants would engage in support to some degree.
The importance of on-site support services such as dentistry, was highlighted
but with an emphasis on linking with mainstream services where possible. It
was noted that tenants with complex needs are often known as “difficult” by
existing services, making it challenging to access supports off-site.
Encouraging tenant participation was promoted, suggesting that a lead tenant
model can increase tenant self esteem, build leadership skills, and ensure
that all tenants have access to peer support.
In addition, encouraging tenant participation in organising on-site activities
and programs was also highlighted as a positive community building model
and that clear strategies for managing neighbourhood disputes should be
established from the start.
The development of a therapeutic community was suggested, with a
community garden, health and wellbeing programs, and creative arts
programs provided on-site.
13
1.2.4 Security
While a 24 hour concierge position was highlighted as important for large
scale complexes, it was noted that the role may not be feasible in smaller
scale complexes.
In addition, it was noted that additional security measures may be required
during the initial 12 months while tenants settle into their new environment.
In general, there was a mix of views regarding the provision of 24 hour
support. Some respondents felt that it was an essential element given the
complex needs of tenants targeted in a Common Ground model. Other
respondents preferred an after hours on-call or lead tenant model to
encourage tenant independence and social skills.
1.2.5 Evaluation
The need to ensure an effective evaluation framework is developed from the
implementation of a Common Ground model was raised. In particular, it was
noted that evaluation should be used to assess the benefits of the model for
producing positive tenant outcomes, and in assessing the cost benefits in
terms of reduced incidences of emergency service use by previously
homeless tenants.
1.2.6 Systemic Collaboration
Collaboration with other Government Directorates was highlighted as
important given the complexity of needs that previously homeless tenants may
have.
In addition, it was suggested that pro-bono specialist services could be
sourced to support the objectives of the Common Ground model and the
responsibility of the whole community in addressing chronic homelessness in
the ACT. In particular, dentistry and GP services were suggested for the
Common Ground model as these services are difficult for low income and
complex needs tenants to access through mainstream providers.
It was suggested that inviting existing community groups to provide programs
on-site would assist in integrating the Common Ground with the broader
community and encourage the operation of on-site services. Programs could
be offered to all tenants as well as the broader ACT community.
14
Part 2: Jurisdictional Analysis of Common
Ground Models
2.1 Overview of Other Models in Australia
2.1.1 Victoria
The Melbourne Common Ground was
established in September 2010. The
model operates from a purpose built inner
city complex located within walking
distance to transport, services and
employment opportunities.
The security access building contains
CCTV thoughout, duress alarms, 24 hour
concierge and after hours security to
ensure the safety of tenants and guests
Of the 161 units, 65 are fully furnished
bedsits allocated to formally homeless
people, 66 are unfurnished bedsits
targeted at low income renters, and 30
are unfurnished 2 bedroom units targeted
at low income families. There is no
integration between singles and family units, with separate entrances and no
common spaces.
Each unit contains a private bathroom and kitchen with intercom access
enabled between units and concierge to enable visitor access. There are no
duress alarms inside units and tenants are required to use the shared laundry
facility.
Rent is charged at 30% of income which includes water and electricity costs.
Yarra Housing retain all funds received through rent to meet costs associated
with providing on-site tenancy management and maintenances services.
15
There are a number of common areas, including:
• communal lounge and terrace;
• roof top garden;
• large conference room with small kitchen- used for breakfast club and
planned programs;
• Library;
• Sewing room;
• Computer room; and
• Light recreation room.
Service rooms are also available on-site, including:
• Counselling room
• Medical treatment room
• Nurses station
• Therapy room (for massage and acupuncture)
Yarra Housing and the support provider HomeGround also have offices onsite. Two social enterprises (a recycling service and a catering service) rent
space on the ground floor, providing employment and training opportunities
for tenants.
2.1.2 Tasmania
Common Ground Tasmania are currently constructing two sites in Hobart
which are expected to be completed in December 2011.
Both buildings will contains CCTV thoughout, secure swipe access, duress
alarms and 24 hour concierge to ensure the security of tenants and guests.
After hours security is also being considered during the initial months of
operation.
16
The Liverpool Street site will contain 25 bedsits and 26
one bedroom apartments. It is intended that allocation
of units to previously homeless and low income
tenants will be mixed, however limitations are
expected given that the one bedroom units are
detached from support service and common facilities.
The Campbell Street site will contain 28 bedsits and
24 one bedroom apartments. Previously homeless
and low income tenants will be mixed through out the
complex.
Each unit will contain a private bathroom and kitchen.
Like Melbourne there are no duress alarms inside
units and tenants are required to use the shared
laundry facility.
All previously homeless units will receive
establishment packs of furniture, linen and other
essential items. All units will receive soft furnishings
and white goods.
There are a number of common areas at each site,
including:
Liverpool Street
• Courtyard
• Art and programs room
• Common house for programs and gatherings
• Shared kitchen/ dining area
• Quiet activities area
• Concierge area
Campbell Street
• Computer room, library and quiet activities
room
• Lockable art room
• Common foyer and concierge area
Service rooms are also available at each site,
including:
Liverpool Street
• 4 treatment/ support rooms
Campbell Street
• Medical treatment room
• 2 Consultation rooms
• A staff office and breakout room is locate at the
Campbell Street site.
17
2.1.3 South Australia
Two Common Ground models
have been established in
Adelaide since 2008. The two
inner city complexes are located
within walking distance to
transport, services and
employment opportunities.
A new Common Ground is also
under development in Port
Augustus which will be
constructed in 2012-2013.
Both existing buildings contain
CCTV thoughout, secure swipe
access, duress alarms and
security patrols 3 times per night
to ensure the security of tenants
and guests.
The Franklin Street complex
contains 26 bed sits and 12 one
bedroom units, distributed equally
to previously homeless and low
income tenants.
The Light Square complex
contains 36 bedsits and 16 one
bedroom units, with one floor
dedicated to mixed female
tenancies.
The Port Augusta complex will
contain 15 bedsits, 15 one bedroom units and 5 two bedroom units in a single
story scatter site model in order to blend in with the rural location.
Each unit contains a private bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities. All units
have been fully furnished through donations.
Rent is charged at 30% of income for previously homeless tenants and social
housing tenants, and 75% of full market rent for affordable housing units.
Common Ground SA also collect National Rental Affordability Scheme
payments for affordable housing properties, helping to off set the debt on the
Light Square building.
18
There are a number of common areas at each site,
including:
Franklin Street
• 1 apartment has been converted into a
common room
• support worker office
Light Square
• Common area- lounge, kitchen, dining and
computer room
• 2 courtyards
Service rooms are also available at the Light Square
site, including:
Light Square
• Counselling room
• Dentist room
• Medical treatment room
Office spaces for Common Ground SA and a large
meeting room for case conferencing is also available
at the Light Square complex.
2.1.4 New South Wales
A Common Ground model has recently
been constructed in Camperdown,
Sydney.
The complex was officially opened in
November 2011 and contains CCTV
thoughout, secure swipe access, duress
alarms and 24 hour concierge.
19
The site consists of 104 units, including 88 bedsits, 12 one bedroom units and
4 two bedroom units.
Each unit contains a private bathroom and kitchen with provision for washing
machines and dryers in bathrooms. All previously homeless units are
expected to be furnished through donations.
Rent is charged at 30% of income for all previously homeless and social
housing tenants (total 62 units). Affordable housing tenancies will be charged
75 % of full market rent and will also attract National Rental Affordability
Scheme payments.
MA Housing will retain all funds received through rent to meet costs
associated with tenancy management, maintenance and future support
needs.
There are a number of common areas, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Multipurpose room for living skills activities
and breakfast club
Activities room for planned program space
Computer room
Common living area and kitchen
Courtyard
Shared laundry
Break out area on each floor
Service rooms are also available on-site, including:
•
•
3 interview rooms
2 medical treatment rooms
The complex includes office spaces for MA
Housing and support workers. Space for a future
social enterprise has also been included in the
design.
20
2.1.5 Queensland
A Common Ground model is
currently under construction in
Brisbane. The model is expected to
open in mid 2012.
The building will contain CCTV
thoughout, secure swipe access,
duress alarms and 24 hour
concierge/security.
Of the146 units, 33 will be adaptable
studio apartments, 102 will be studio
apartments, and 11 will be one
bedroom apartments.
Each unit will contain a private
bathroom and kitchen. While the
service provider MICAH, have been
funded to furnish 50% of the units, the organisation intends to furnish all units
if possible.
Rent will be charged at 30% of income for all tenants who will be made up of
50% previously homeless and 50% social housing tenants.
There are a number of common areas, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Foyer and concierge area, including internet kiosk, visitors lounge and
mail boxes
Training room, including computers and projectors for development
courses
Art room with adjoining courtyard
Communal vegetable and fruit garden
Gardens on every second floor, alternating with breakout lounges
Multipurpose recreation room that can also be rented out to community
groups for functions and meetings
Roof top kitchen for functions and cooking classes
Communal tenant lounge and roof top garden
Pool room with pool table and separate quiet area
Service rooms are also available on-site, including:
•
•
2 interview rooms
Group work room
Office spaces for tenancy managers and support workers, and future retail
spaces have also been built into the design.
21
2.2 Key findings from other jurisdictions
2.2.1 Tenant mix
All models aim for a 50:50 split between formally homeless and low income
tenants however, the mix of low income tenants varies between social
housing tenants and affordable housing tenants, and the mix of previously
homeless tenants varies from high and complex needs to low and medium
needs individuals.
Common Ground SA note that attraction of affordable housing tenants can
prove challenging however low income tenants are generally happy to accept
the accommodation offer. Inability to attract a mix of tenants can lead to
concentrations of social disadvantage and impact on the financial
sustainability of the model which relies on the collection of affordable housing
rents. The extent to which this is an issue varies considerably among the
different Common Ground developments in Australia, depending on local
conditions.
All target singles and couples only, with the exception of Melbourne, however
family units are not integrated with the broader Common Ground complex. All
models also aim for a 50:50 split of males and females, however note that
more males are referred to the programs.
Mixed results have been achieved by allocating a single floor entirely to
women. Adelaide has managed this successfully however, Melbourne have
found that the women invite men in anyway, increasing the risk for women
and support staff who may be exposed to violent visitors.
Services note the importance of allocating tenancies based both on
vulnerability and appropriate consideration of existing tenant mix. For
example, Adelaide maintains a limited 10% intake of high needs homeless
people with the remaining 40% drawn from the broader homeless population.
In addition, no more than 3 drug users will be accommodated on any one
floor.
While Melbourne have designated 15 units to people exiting correctional
facilities, Adelaide notes that their experience with this target group is that
institutionalised behaviours can lead to bullying and intimidation of other
vulnerable people.
2.2.2 Concierge
Most models have been able to finance a 24 hour concierge role, however
many doubt the ongoing viability of the role, noting that US models utilise
rental income from larger complexes to finance the position.
22
Adelaide does not provide 24 hour concierge, instead offering an on call
support service and a security patrol three times per night.
It was suggested by the Adelaide Common Ground that the concierge role
encouraged dependency and did not allow for the development of coping
skills. In addition, it was noted that a concierge would require security back up
in the event of an incident anyway.
Brisbane will be outsourcing the concierge role to a security agency, noting
that the high degree of drug use in the area is expected to be a challenge. It
was suggested that if a security presence is not viable, consideration should
be given to the target group accommodated and the location to ensure high
security support is not needed.
2.2.3 Tenancy Management
Despite the recognised need to separate tenancy management and support
functions, the need to collaborate at some level was also apparent.
While most models have separated the functions into separate agencies,
Adelaide has successfully managed both services though Common Ground
SA while ensuring separate tenancy management and support worker roles.
In NSW, MA Housing will act as the lead agent and will also receive funding
from Housing NSW to provide support to tenants.
In most cases, the support funding is provided and the tenancy management
is funded through the collection of rental income. It was suggested that a
concierge role would be best funded through tenancy management income
collection rather than through support funding, however in most cases this has
not occurred due to the funding arrangements negotiated in each jurisdiction.
2.2.4 On-site Supports
Each model has a different approach to the delivery of on-site supports.
Melbourne has been highly focused on providing specialist supports on site,
such as GP, psychiatrists, psychologists, drug and alcohol workers, nurses,
massage and acupuncture.
Sydney also has a focus on providing on site specialist supports, including an
on-site GP, Mental Health Psychiatrist, a Brain Injury Psychiatrist, Mental
Health Nurse, and a Psychologist.
Adelaide however, have instead taken a case coordination focus, linking
tenants to mainstream and external specialist support services where
possible. To do this, Adelaide have brokerage funds available to ensure
tenant access to services where needed. Support workers act as lead workers
to ensure all relevant service providers are committed to and engaged in the
case plan.
23
The University of SA Dentistry School will soon be operating a student clinic
from the Franklin Street site. This service will be accessible to all tenants of
the Common Ground as well as the broader homelessness sector.
Brisbane will also take on a case coordination focus rather than providing
specialist services on-site. Eligible tenants will however, have access to Home
and Community Care. The program is also currently in discussions with a
local hospital to provide a nurse on site for all tenants on an intermittent basis.
2.2.5 Physical Space
Issues have been raised around shared laundries which have led to tenant
disputes. Sydney and Adelaide have addressed this issue through the
provision of laundry facilities within individual units.
Issues have also been raised around the lack of parking available for
residents with no Common Ground model providing parking facilities. Most
models have focused on providing bike racks instead of car spaces, however
many low income tenants in particular, have been inconvenienced due to the
lack of parking options.
Physical sites have been designed to allow for casual interaction rather than
forced interaction. This is achieved through the creation of open common
spaces, landscaped gardens and recreational areas.
The need to provide inside/outside spaces for vulnerable people to choose
the extent of interaction that feels comfortable to them was emphasised.
Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane have all used Grocon to construct the
buildings. All feedback has suggested that significant savings allowed for
higher quality designs and finishes.
A full comparison table of Common Ground models discussed in this paper is
at Appendix B.
24
Part 3: Data Analysis and Review of Existing
Services
3.1 Data Analysis
3.1.1 National Data
In 2009–10, 219,900 people (or 1 in every 100 Australians) used
Government-funded specialist homelessness services nationally. Of these,
135,700 (62%) were adults and 84,100 (38%) were accompanying children.
Aside from young people, the majority of service users were single men over
25 years of age at 25%, followed by women with children at 23% (not
including the number of accompanying children) and single females over 25
years of age at 18%.
The reasons for seeking assistance varied according to the sub-group
represented. Single men aged 25 years and over commonly sought
assistance because of financial difficulties (25%), health issues (19%) or as a
result of substance use (11%).
Homelessness as a result of substance use was significantly higher for this
sub-group compared to other sub-groups which ranged between 1-3%.
Single women and women with children commonly sought assistance
because of issues in their interpersonal relationships, such as domestic or
family violence or the breakdown of a relationship with a family member,
spouse or partner (55-65% respectively).
3.1.2 ACT Data
In 2010-11, 2,965 people accessed ACT Government funded specialist
homelessness services. Of these, 1,750 (59%) were clients and 1,215 (49%)
were accompanying children.
The highest proportion of homeless people were those aged 20-24 years.
Clients aged 25-44 were significantly more likely to experience repeat periods
of homelessness, with this group making up 13% of all support periods
provided.
It should be noted that 79% of all clients experienced only one instance of
homelessness during the reporting year.
In 2010-11, a total of 1,015 (58%) clients were identified as female, and 735
(42%) identified as male. In addition, 13% of clients were identified as
Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders and 3.7% of clients were born in
Sudan (the second highest country of birth after Australia).
25
Of the 1,215 accompanying children, 595 (49%) were aged under 5 years of
age and 430 (35%) were aged 5-12 years of age. Children in these age
groups were significantly more likely to experience repeat periods of
homelessness.
Unaccompanied persons received 1,427 (55.8%) support periods, with 731
(28.6%) of support periods received by one parent families. Collectively, these
two groups received 84% of support periods provided.
The most prominent reason for seeking support was relationship/family
breakdown, accounting for 13.3% of all reasons for support. Collectively,
relationship/family breakdown, interpersonal conflict, domestic/family violence,
and time out from family/other situations accounted for 35% of all reasons for
support.
Mental health issues, problematic substance use, health issues and
psychiatric illness collectively accounted for 17.8% of all reasons for support.
A full breakdown of reasons for seeking support is provided below:
Ranking Reasons for seeking support
1
Relationship/family breakdown
2
Financial difficulty (other than items 11,16 and
22)
3
Interpersonal conflict
4
Domestic/family violence
5
Time out from family/other situation
6
Mental health issues
7
Physical/emotional abuse
8
Previous accommodation ended
9
Problematic drug/alcohol/substance use
10
Eviction/ asked to leave
11
Budgeting problems
12
Health issues (other than items 6 and18)
13
Issues other than those listed
14
Overcrowding issues
15
Recently left institution
16
Rent too high
17
Recent arrival to area with no support
18
Psychiatric illness
19
Itinerant
20
Emergency accommodation ended
21
Sexual abuse
22
Gambling
23
Gay/lesbian/transgender issues
24
No information provided
Number
1,116
654
Percent
13.3%
7.8%
628
615
571
548
432
427
420
419
394
371
349
310
216
207
197
154
146
117
76
20
10
7
7.5%
7.3%
6.8%
6.5%
5.1%
5.1%
5%
5%
4.7%
4.4%
4.2%
3.7%
2.6%
2.5%
2.3%
1.8%
1.7%
1.4%
0.9%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
While 40 people (2.3%) were identified as living on the streets prior to seeking
support, a further 161 people (9.1%) were living in impoverished dwellings, in
cars, in tents or in squatting conditions, and 131 people (7.4%) were living in a
26
boarding/rooming house. The majority of people were living in a house or flat
at 1,002 people (56.9%).
Of those people seeking assistance during the demand data collection, 59.6%
were unaccompanied persons and 35.1% were one parent families. Across all
unassisted persons, 59.6% required accommodation that night and only 27%
were able to be accommodated within specialist homelessness services.
3.1.3 Street to Home Data
The Street to Home program commenced in February 2010 and is operated
by St Vincent de Paul. The Street to Home initiative coordinates the delivery
of services to people on the streets, rather than requiring them to attend
appointments in offices.
The program provides support to up to 30 rough sleepers at any one time and
helps them to overcome barriers to find and maintain appropriate housing.
The 2011-12 ACT Government budget allocated an additional $504,000 over
four years for the expansion of the program. This additional funding will
ensure mental health support is available to all rough sleepers who need it.
The program was also recently allocated 6 Housing ACT properties to provide
crisis and long term accommodation options for rough sleepers in the ACT.
Long term accommodation is provided on a Housing First basis, with outreach
support continuing until stablisation is achieved.
In 2010-11, Street to Home supported 53 people sleeping rough in the ACT.
100% of these people were clients in their own right. Street to Home did not
support any accompanying children during the reporting period.
The highest proportion of people sleeping rough was those aged 30-34
(18.9%) years, followed closely by those aged 45-49 years (17%).
It should be noted that only two people experienced more than one instance
of homelessness with 20.4% of people moving into a house or flat after
receiving support.
In 2010-11, a total of 15 clients (28.3%) were identified as female, and 38
clients (71.7%) were identified as male. Given that 58% of all homeless
persons in the ACT were female, the significantly lower representation of
females than males sleeping rough indicates that females are more likely to
be hidden within the homeless population. In addition, anecdotal evidence
suggests the females will be more likely to stay in dangerous or impoverished
circumstances to avoid sleeping rough.
85% of people sleeping rough were born in Australia with no other country of
birth represented significantly in the 2010-2011 reporting year.
Unaccompanied persons received 81 (73.6%) support periods, with 7(6.4%)
support periods received by couples without children.
27
Consistent with the broader homelessness population, the most prominent
reason for seeking support was relationship/family breakdown, accounting for
13.2% of all reasons for support. Collectively, relationship/family breakdown,
interpersonal conflict, domestic/family violence, and time out from family/other
situations accounted for 37% of all reasons for support.
Mental health issues, problematic substance use, health issues and
psychiatric illness collectively accounted for 18.2% of all reasons for support.
The consistency of data relating to reasons for support between those
sleeping rough and the broader homelessness population, indicates that there
is no significant increase in types of support required for those sleeping rough
compared to the broader homeless population.
A full breakdown of reasons for seeking support from Street to Home is
provided below:
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Reasons for seeking support
Relationship/family breakdown
Time out from family/other situation
Interpersonal conflict
Financial difficulty (other than items 11 and 16)
Mental health issues
Previous accommodation ended
Eviction/ asked to leave
Physical/ emotional abuse
Domestic violence
Health issues (other than items 5 and 17)
Budgeting problems
Problematic drug/alcohol/substance use
Recent arrival to area with no support
Itinerant
Recently left institution
Rent to high
Psychiatric illness
Overcrowding issues
Emergency accommodation ended
Number
37
25
25
23
19
17
17
17
17
16
15
14
13
12
4
4
2
2
1
Percent
13.2%
8.9%
8.9%
8.2%
6.8%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
5.7%
5.4%
5.0%
4.6%
4.3%
1.4%
1.6%
0.7%
0.7%
0.4%
3.1.4 Toora Day Refuge Data
The Toora Day Refuge was established to support single women who have
experienced or are experiencing homelessness. The day refuge aims to bring
services to vulnerable women through a range of service partnerships and
linkages.
In 2010-11, the Toora Day Refuge supported 593 women. 100% of these
people were clients in their own right as Toora Women’s Inc. does not support
accompanying children.
28
In the January- June 2011 reporting period 49% of women supported were
born in Australia with Africa the only other significant representation at (18%).
In the same period, 14 women supported (5%) were identified as sleeping
rough and 14 women (5%) had issues related to drug and/or alcohol
dependency. The service reported that 36 women supported (13%) had
experienced domestic violence prior to seeking support.
While the service reports that profile data may be lower than reported due to
the difficulties in obtaining information from the client group, a breakdown of
client profiles reported is provided below:
Ranking
1
2
3
4
5
Client Profile
Domestic violence
Sleeping rough
Drug and/or alcohol issues
Mental health issues
Physical health issues
Number
36
14
14
11
6
Percent
13%
5%
5%
4%
2%
Supports and services accessed by women at the Toora Day Refuge in order
of demand include; computer facilities (69%), groups programs (54%),
emotional support (47%), laundry facilities (33%), shower facilities (7%), and
food services (4%). Other services accounted for 39% of supports/services
provided.
3.1.5 First Point Data
First Point, the ACT’s Central Intake Service for homelessness services,
provides a single access point into the ACT homelessness system ensuring
that clients do not have to negotiate multiple agencies to access the services
they need.
The service operates through a telephone system to assist in matching those
in need of support to social housing and homelessness services.
First Point provides placement into homelessness and housing support
services for people in the ACT, and will facilitate access to other relevant
services as required.
In January- June 2011 a total of 1,800 individuals contacted First Point for the
first time, with an average of 78 new clients engaging with the service each
week.
Of those clients, 737 individuals (41%) were identified as having the highest
level of housing need and vulnerability according to the organisations
vulnerability/risk assessment matrix.
During the reporting period, First Point assisted 496 individuals (28%) to
access homelessness accommodation services, of which 287 were placed in
29
crisis accommodation and 209 were placed in transitional accommodation
services.
First Point referred 456 individuals (26%) to housing support and outreach
services to support existing tenancies and provided 95 instances of brokered
accommodation (total of 697 bed nights).
A total of 2,626 individuals have been supported by First Point since the
commencement of the service in November 2010.
In addition to the data received directly from First Point, a telephone survey
was conducted by Housing ACT during census week 2011 of all clients on the
First Point waiting list. Analysis of survey respondents compared to those
clients who could not be contacted during census week revealed a potential
bias towards technological access.
The survey respondents were more likely to be in the younger age group, in
employment or in receipt of youth allowance, presenting as a couple with or
without children, and with some form of tenure.
With the majority of telephone numbers provided by clients being mobile
phone numbers, a potential link exists between lack of access to mobile
phones and the reduced ability to contact older individuals, unemployed, and
those with no existing tenure.
3.1.6 Data summary
The ACT data demonstrates that unaccompanied people and one parent
families are the highest demand groups for accommodation and support
services. It should be noted that single people with complex needs and one
parent families require different types of support and would benefit from
differing models of service delivery.
Relationship issues in general, constitute the most prominent reasons for
seeking support, followed closely by health related issues including, mental,
psychiatric, physical, and substance abuse issues.
The data also demonstrates that women are more likely to be at risk of
remaining in vulnerable living conditions to avoid sleeping rough. This target
group is disproportionately represented in the broader homelessness data
compared to the Street to Home data which measures specifically rough
sleepers.
These findings are supported by the consistency between the representation
of females in the Street to Home data with the representation of females
sleeping rough in the Toora Day Refuge data.
In addition, it was highlighted that older individuals without employment or
tenure of any kind are potentially at risk of vulnerability due to reduced
capacity to access First Point when mobile phone technology is not available.
This is especially prudent given that vacancies allocated through First Point
30
require the service to be able to contact the individual concerned who may
have no fixed address and therefore no fixed contact option.
Addressing primary homelessness in the ACT should consider the
identification of vulnerable people who may not be able to access First Point,
as well as the differing needs of unaccompanied people with complex needs,
and families. A range of existing services are already in place to support these
groups. These services will be discussed below.
3.2 Existing Services
Each of the programs below have been designed to meet the needs of
differing target groups, in recognition that no one model will meet the needs of
all people who are experiencing homelessness in the ACT.
While it is recognised that individuals and families experiencing long term
homelessness can not simply be categorised into pre-determined categories,
it is useful to outline the programs available in order to recognise gaps in
addressing identified areas of need.
3.2.1 Programs targeting unaccompanied persons with complex
needs
a) Managed Accommodation Programs (MAPs)
The Managed Accommodation Programs have been established to support
men and women exiting detention at the Alexander Maconochie Centre, the
ACT’s new prison.
Accommodation is initially provided under a head tenancy arrangement, with
clients housed in place and signed to their own tenancies when support is no
longer required. Properties have been sourced from Housing ACT stock. The
women’s component of the program also operates a transitional property for
women who are not ready to move into their own property straight away.
Key outcomes of the programs include securing and maintaining long-term
accommodation, improving basic living skills, addressing complex health and
substance abuse issues, and re-engaging with their families and community.
As each individual’s experience of incarceration will differ in time, cause and
progress made against existing needs, no single exit plan is appropriate to
suit the needs of all people exiting the corrections system.
While the majority of people engaged in the program will require a period of
intensive support during their initial release, others will be ready to move into
a housing first model with minimal support needs straight away, and some will
require ongoing support for an extended period of time.
31
b) The Mental Health Housing and Support Initiative
The Mental Health Housing and Support Initiative (HASI) was established in
the ACT to increase tenancy and clinical support for tenants with a mental
illness. Three new Client Support Coordinators will also be engaged by
Housing ACT to support tenants with disruptive behaviours that may impact
upon their capacity to sustain their tenancies. A particular emphasis of these
roles will be on supporting tenants with drug and alcohol dependencies.
HASI operates as a three-way service delivery partnership in the ACT:
• Accommodation, support and rehabilitation associated with the
individual’s needs are provided by four non-government organisations
(funded by ACT Health);
• Clinical care and rehabilitation are provided by ACT Mental Health
Services; and
• Long–term secure and affordable housing and property and tenancy
management services are provided by Housing ACT.
The aim of HASI is to provide integrated support packages of housing and
mental health support, to provide sustainable tenancies in public housing for
people with moderate to severe mental health issues.
The HASI program has achieved an effective partnership arrangement
between key agencies and clinicians to ensure that services are delivered to
clients in a coordinated and timely manner. The success of the program has
enabled 67% of clients to sustain their tenancies for over 12 months and has
led to a 50% expansion of the program from July 2011.
c) Our Place
The ACT’s ‘Our Place’ program operates on a
“set aside units” model in which 15 units within
the 42 unit complex (2 of the 5 blocks) are
dedicated to housing young people who have
experienced or are at risk of homelessness.
Our Place provides long term (up to 3 years)
supported accommodation for young people
aged 16-21 on entry.
Our Place combines affordable, quality
accommodation, education, training and
employment opportunities, mentoring and life
skills development to enhance the long term
outcomes for young people.
The service operates from a planned community site in Braddon which also
provides affordable housing, general public housing and older persons
housing. Young couples and young parents can also be accepted into the
program.
32
A key challenge for the program has been the development of external
service linkages and support partnerships. While the Rotary Club of Canberra
has been an active partner in the program, it has been difficult to gain support
from other agencies and business partners. It is anticipated that the
Governance Board convened to oversee the implementation of the program
will play a role in bringing together external support networks in future years.
d) Men’s Accommodation Support Service (MASS)
In addition to the Men’s component of the Managed Accommodation
Programs, Canberra Men’s Centre also supports men who are homeless who
have not been involved in the corrections system. The service provides
accommodation and support for single men with high and complex needs,
including mental illness and substance use issues.
Key outcomes of the program include securing and maintaining long-term
accommodation, improving basic living skills, addressing complex health and
substance abuse issues, and re-engaging with their families and community.
The MASS program utilises a head lease-Housing First approach whereby the
tenancy can be transferred once stabilisation and sustainability can be
ensured. This is achieved by the provision of safe and secure accommodation
to stabilise the man’s environment, complemented by a continuum of support
to break the cycle of homelessness.
The service recognises that some individuals with complex needs will not be
ready to commit to engaging in a compact of support in order to access
housing and may require long periods of assertive outreach before a rapport
can be developed.
e) Street to Home
The Street to Home program discussed in section 3.1.3 predominantly
supports singles sleeping rough in the ACT. The service manages 6 Housing
ACT properties in order to provide both crisis and long term accommodation
options for people seeking to move off the streets.
The four long term properties are operated on a Head Lease-Housing First
model with tenancies transferred into the tenants name when stabilisation has
occurred. The service notes that transitioning rough sleepers into
accommodation takes time and requires a degree of flexibility to ensure
clients are comfortable within their new environment. For example, the service
has allowed rough sleepers to initially spend a couple of nights a week in the
property during the transition period.
33
3.2.2 Programs targeted at families
a) A Place to Call Home
The ‘A Place to Call Home’ program (APTCH) provides accommodation and
short term support to people who are homeless and housing ready.
APTCH seeks to address the hurdles that homeless families face by providing
long term, secure accommodation with wrap around outreach support based
on a Housing First service model.
APTCH targets families experiencing disadvantage due to a history of drug
and alcohol misuse, mental illness, domestic violence or disability related
issues. In addition, it is considered that families who have experienced repeat
periods of homelessness would benefit from a Housing First approach in
order to stabilise complex issues that have prevented sustainability of
accommodation in the past.
When capability to sustain a tenancy is established, the lease agreement is
transferred from the supporting agency to the individual/family, eliminating
multiple moves through the crisis, transitional and public housing system.
The ACT’s APTCH initiative
operates on a scattered
accommodation model
providing 20 new, 4-5
bedroom, and high quality
properties in various
locations through out the
ACT. Completed properties
have been built with high
energy efficiency ratings and
have taken into account the need to construct properties with lower
maintenance costs to ensure sustainability of the program into the future.
b) The Head Lease Program
The Head Lease Program (HLP) is a preventative program designed to
support Housing ACT tenants at risk of losing their tenancy due to the impacts
of high support needs that can not be resolved by the Housing ACT Client
Support Coordinators. Tenants engaged in the HLP are linked with a support
agency who takes on the property lease on their behalf. Eligible tenants may
be individuals or families.
The support agency is also responsible for providing case management
support to the individual or family, to address issues that put their tenancy at
risk and work towards improving the sustainability of the tenancy in the long
term. When capability to sustain the tenancy is re-established, the lease
agreement is transferred from the supporting agency back to the individual or
family, preventing homelessness that may otherwise have occurred.
34
Prior to this point, the supporting agency will work with the individual or family
to ensure that linkages to mainstream services are established, where
appropriate. It is expected that the supporting agency will continue to provide
occasional low-level support, if required, while the individual or family
develops greater confidence in managing independently.
The HLP provides medium to long term support for as long as the tenant
needs in order to ensure a long term positive housing outcome.
c)
Transitional Housing Programs
A number of services in the ACT provide transitional accommodation to
vulnerable families and individuals experiencing homelessness. Clients
accommodated in transitional housing properties can often wait for over six
months before permanent accommodation can be obtained.
Increasingly, where stabilisation of tenant circumstances has occurred and
clients express an interest in remaining within the transitional housing
property, the tenancy can, in many cases, be transferred into their name,
preventing the need to move in order to access permanent accommodation.
This approach allows transitional housing programs to provide a permanent
housing solution to clients, with a new property allocated to the transitional
program to support another family or individual experiencing homelessness.
While formal processes for the transfer of transitional properties are still under
development, the collaboration of Housing ACT staff and specialist
homelessness services has allowed for the successful transfer of a number of
Housing ACT properties to vulnerable tenants accommodated in transitional
programs.
3.2.3 Summary of Existing Services
While there are a range of services targeted at unaccompanied persons with
complex needs and families, demand data indicates that ‘insufficient
accommodation available’ accounted for 46.1% of cases where
accommodation could not be provided in 2010-11.
Analysis of accommodation services available indicates that a significant
number of long term unaccompanied person services are targeted at males,
increasing the risk for unaccompanied women to remain in crisis and
transitional accommodation services, or in dangerous and impoverished
conditions. Services targeted at females tend to be transitional in nature,
suggesting a need for long term accommodation options.
The data indicates that identification of women will require a deliberate and
determined approach outside of those people supported by Street to Home.
This will require careful consideration in the identification and allocation
process to ensure equitable distribution of tenancies to both gender groups.
35
Part 4: Service Model
4.1 Service Specifics
As discussed in section 2 Jurisdictional Analysis, there are a number of
differences between Common Ground models that would need to be
considered in the development of a Common Ground model for the ACT. Each
of the key findings will be discussed below in relation to their application in the
ACT.
4.1.1 Tenant Mix
a) Singles and couples only
The ACT data indicates that unaccompanied persons with complex needs and
one parent families with children compose the highest demand groups for
accommodation services. All Common Ground models established or under
construction in Australia have restricted eligibility to singles and couples
without children, noting that the complexity of high needs tenants creates an
environment unsuitable for children.
The literature review also highlights the different needs in terms of both
accommodation and support for families with children, suggesting that a
Common Ground model attempting to target both of these groups would be
difficult to achieve. Given that Common Ground models do not require tenants
to address underlying causes of homelessness, such as mental illness and
substance addictions, it was largely considered throughout the consultations
to be an inappropriate model for families where children’s safety can be
compromised by those issues.
b) Diversity of needs and tenancy types
The experience of existing Common Ground models suggests that
appropriate consideration of tenant mix and support needs is important. This
has been achieved in South Australia by restricting high support needs clients
to 10% of the total population and ensuring that people with complex issues
such as substance addictions are not accommodated closely with others who
may impact on their capacity for recovery.
Ensuring a 50:50 split of previously homeless and low income tenants will
require the attraction of both social and affordable rental tenants. In particular,
students, apprentices and key workers can provide a stable base of tenants to
support the development of community within the complex. Although flexibility
will be required in tenancy allocations, the table below outlines an
approximate proposed tenant mix:
Canberra Common
Ground Tenancies
Low income
Affordable
Social
Housing
Housing
25%
25%
Previously Homeless
High Needs
Medium
Needs
25%
25%
36
4.1.2 Safety
a) Physical Safety
In order to ensure the protection of vulnerable people accommodated in the
Common Ground, CCTV cameras in common areas and program spaces
should be used. CCTV cameras along with a single entry point can also be
used to monitor tenants bringing visitors into the complex after hours.
Vulnerable people are often targeted by associates wishing to stay at their
properties. Often this leads to property damage, illegal activities and general
abuse of the tenant’s inability to say no. CCTV cameras provide a deterrent to
this behaviour as security patrol and support workers can act to remove such
visitors as a breach of the occupancy agreement.
In addition, swipe card access and consideration of the physical design that
allows for line of sight into common spaces should be used to discourage
uninvited guests from loitering in the premises, potentially risking the safety of
tenants and staff.
b) Managed Safety
A smaller Common Ground would require a lower level of managed safety
measures than other large scale models developed in larger cities. This
should include 16 hour a day on-site support and after hours on-call support.
It is anticipated that after-hours security patrol during the first 12 months will
be required regardless of the scale to ensure that access to the site is limited
to tenants and appropriate guests.
It is anticipated that security requirements will be greater during the initial
implementation and will tailor off as tenants stabilise in their new environment.
This is consistent with the experiences of Common Ground models
established in Australia. It is also anticipated that as security requirements
decline, tenant participation in maintaining the safety of their environment and
neighbours could be encouraged. This has been successfully achieved in
South Australia where stabilised tenants have been able to take on positions
of responsibility such as fire wardens and lead tenants.
4.1.3 Tenancy Management
a) Separation of roles
While the separation of tenancy management and support services is
considered important, evidence from Common Ground models in Australia
indicates that this can be effectively achieved by one agency or two.
The tenancy management framework should allow for collaboration with
support providers where tenancies are at risk, while protecting the rights of
the tenant not to disclose information relating to individual case plans,
treatment plans or support needs.
37
b) Rent and transitional agreements
While previously homeless and social housing tenants would be required to
pay no more than 25% of their income (consistent with Housing ACT rental
practices), those not eligible for a rental rebate would be charged an
affordable rent of no more than 74.9% of full market rent. It should be noted
however that difficulties in attracting affordable housing tenants may present a
risk in the viability of the model. The strong demand for affordable housing in
the ACT may lower this risk and make the development more attractive to
affordable housing tenants. All tenants may also be required to remit
Commonwealth Rental Assistance to the housing manager as part of their
rental contribution.
Once a vacancy is allocated to a chronically homeless person, flexibility during
the transition stage will be required. While the Residential Tenancies Act 1997
requires that an occupancy agreement commence on the day that the tenant
takes possession of the premises, chronically homeless people should be
allowed to occupy the premises on an informal/casual basis for an initial period
prior to signing an occupancy agreement. This may take affect as an initial
short term agreement (with or without rent payable) prior to signing up to a
formal ongoing occupancy agreement. This would recognise the difficulties
that chronically homeless people often face in committing to a formal
agreement straight away.
c) Capacity for transfers
Previously homeless tenants and social housing tenants should remain on the
social housing register to allow for transfers out of the Common Ground
should the accommodation become unsuitable to their needs. For example, if
persistent neighbourhood disputes cannot be resolved or the tenant no longer
requires community housing. This is consistent with existing practices for
people taking up shared housing through the social housing register and
should be expanded to include Common Ground tenancies.
In this way, permanent tenure does not necessarily require permanent housing
within the Common Ground complex but rather, ensures for security of tenure
while allowing for the transition of accommodation in order to meet the
changing needs of the tenant.
In addition to creating the flexibility to respond to changing needs, permanent
tenure rather than permanent housing would also allow for a degree of flow
through necessary to ensure the Common Ground model continues to
respond to the needs of the most vulnerable chronically homeless people in
future years.
The experience of the longest running Common Ground in Australia (Franklin
Street, Adelaide), indicates that previously homeless tenants move on from
Common Ground accommodation after an average of 55 weeks while low
income tenants move on after an average of 85 weeks. While it should be
noted that average stay may not be consistent with the mean length of
38
accommodation (with some staying longer and some staying for shorter
periods of time), this does suggest that despite the capacity for tenants to stay
permanently, many tenants choose to move on once stabilisation of their
circumstances has occurred.
While it is recognised that for some people who have experienced chronic
homelessness, Common Ground support services will always be required, the
following diagram represents an idealized pathway through Common Ground
tenancies for individuals who stablise within their environment and choose to
move on overtime:
Previously
Homeless
TenancyHigh Support
Needs
New Common
Ground Allocation
Previously
Homeless
TenancyMedium
Support Needs
Low Income
Tenancy
Independent Tenancy- Public
Housing, Community Housing,
Private Rental etc…
4.1.4 Onsite supports
a) Case coordination
The support model should focus on case coordination and link with
mainstream services where possible. Dedicated treatment rooms on-site can
be used as outreach clinics for mainstream and specialist practitioners to
attend on an alternating basis. This would ensure that tenants have access to
services that they can continue to utilise within the community should they
move out of the Common Ground complex in time.
Specialist services would be sourced from existing funded programs
interested in providing services on site, from medicare funded practitioners,
and from pro bono and partner sponsored arrangements. The experience of
the ACT Street to Home program suggests that this model would work
effectively if specialist and mainstream services are encouraged to contribute
to the objectives of the Common Ground approach.
On-site support workers would be responsible for coordinating case plans for
individual tenants (previously homeless and those at risk), including
collaborating with mainstream and specialist practitioners to ensure the
coordinated delivery of support to the tenants concerned.
39
Flexibility in the provision of tenancy management and program operation can
be used to ensure that a minimum of two to three staff members are on site
during the core business hours each day.
b) Program delivery
In addition to case coordination, on-site programs such as literacy and
numeracy programs, drug and alcohol programs, health and wellbeing
programs, and social inclusion activities should be facilitated according to
tenant needs.
A dedicated program officer will be important to ensure that social inclusion
and engagement activities are developed to meet the needs of tenants
accommodated. This role would also be responsible for coordinating access
to life-skills and work-skills training, linking tenants with employment
opportunities and developing partnerships with external organisations that
may provide community engagement opportunities for tenants.
4.2 Systemic Management Arrangements and Responsibilities
4.2.1 Identification and allocation of Common Ground tenancies
Under the Public Rental Housing Assistance Program 2008, the housing
commissioner can determine that a particular property is a specified dwelling
for the purpose of accommodating individuals with special needs outside of
the general allocation provisions. Consistent with sub clause (6), Common
Ground tenancies can be allocated to chronically homeless individuals on the
basis of their particular housing requirements “arising as a result of their age,
physical or mental capacity or residency status”.
In addition, participation on the social housing register allows for increased
flexibility in the identification and allocation of potential tenants by allowing for
the consideration of tenant mix, needs and circumstances. In this way, the
Common Ground can reasonably define the parameters of eligibility and
allocate with consideration of individual requirements.
While the allocation of properties “out of turn” often raises concerns over the
fairness of such allocations, Director of the Curum Research institute,
Mr Brian Lee Archer, suggests that fair allocation of resources does not have
to mean equal allocation because of the relative disparity in starting
positions/needs of different applicants.
Lee Archer recognises that equal allocation regardless of circumstances can
lead to over servicing of those with low needs and under servicing of those
with high needs. Given the finite resources available, Lee Archer suggests that
those resources would most fairly be allocated to those with the highest
needs, such as chronically homeless people. This is consistent with the
existing allocation of Housing ACT properties to applicants assessed as on
priority due to their existing circumstances and housing needs.
40
a) Previously Homeless Tenants
Given that Common Ground seeks to target those who would not other wise
be able to negotiate the existing homelessness system, consideration of the
identification and allocation process is required.
The ACT Common Ground should work closely with First Point as the central
intake service, however should also allow for flexibility in the identification
process. This can be achieved through clear articulation of the Common
Ground objectives and eligibility requirements to all specialist homelessness
services and other services supporting highly vulnerable people, such as
Centrelink, the Domestic Violence Crisis Service, ACT Mental Health etc…
Increasing awareness of the Common Ground objectives and eligibility, will
allow services that come into contact with vulnerable people in their day to day
operations, to act as a point of contact for those who may otherwise fall
through the gaps of the existing homelessness system.
Once identified, assessment and consequent accommodation offers should be
made through an assertive outreach model rather than depending on
telephone contact or requiring vulnerable individuals to make contact with First
Point themselves.
This would provide a diverse entry point system using workers and
organisations already in contact with chronically homeless and vulnerable
people to refer suitable applicants to First Point for assessment by the
Common Ground service provider.
b) Low Income Tenants
To ensure the creation of a mixed community, low income tenancies should be
identified through a variety of sources, including public housing, community
housing, and affordable housing pathways.
Identification of low income tenants would come partially from the Social
Housing Register, which allows for eligible applicants to be reviewed and
selected by the accommodation provider. This would allow the service
provider to make appropriate consideration of existing tenant mix and allow for
the specification of singles/couples only accommodation.
In order to participate on the Social Housing Register, the Common Ground
service provider would be required to register as a non-government
community housing provider with the ACT Office of Registrar.
In addition, affordable housing tenancies should be advertised publically to
encourage students, apprentices and other key workers to apply.
Given the complexity of needs associated with the previously homeless group,
careful consideration of tenant mix will be important and will require the
41
scattering of tenancies between previously homeless and low income tenants
to prevent segregation within the complex.
4.2.2 Governance
The Canberra Common Ground Group has an existing network of interested
people committed to advancing the objectives of Common Ground in the ACT.
It is anticipated that this group would be responsible for fundraising,
networking and capacity building for any Common Ground model developed,
in conjunction with the successful service provider/s and the Australian
Common Ground Alliance.
In addition, an evaluative body should be established comprising the Common
Ground service provider, representatives from the Canberra Common Ground
Group and representatives from relevant Government Directorates. The
evaluative body would be responsible for assessing the impact of the Common
Ground model on tenant outcomes, resourcing, service/program demand, and
integration with the surrounding community.
A high level Service Partnership Agreement should be developed between the
Community Services Directorate, Health Directorate, Justice and Community
Safety Directorate, and the Education and Training Directorate as key partners
in the delivery of services to Common Ground tenants. The Service
Partnership Agreement should outline core responsibilities and processes for
effectively integrating service responses.
4.2.3 Integrated Service Delivery
While the Common Ground would be funded to provide case coordination to
previously homeless tenants, it is recognised that integration with mainstream
and specialist services will be required to meet the needs of the target group.
A multidisciplinary team of mainstream workers drawn from the participating
Directorates should be established to provide coordinated case planning and
delivery of support services. Members of the multidisciplinary team would be
called upon as needed by the Common Ground support workers, according to
the needs of individual clients.
Where possible, Common Ground tenants should be assisted to access
mainstream and specialist support services off-site to encourage integration
with the broader community and independence from the Common Ground
complex.
Where mainstream and specialist services are not accessible off-site,
partnership arrangements with pro bono service providers should be sourced
to provide medicare funded services on-site to Common Ground tenants, for
example, dentistry, general medical services, and some psychiatric services.
It is not anticipated that such services would be available everyday, rather on
an alternating but regular basis.
42
Part 5: Physical Accommodation
5.1 Requirements for the Physical Form
A corner stone of the Common Ground model is that physical accommodation
should be of a high quality, secure and conducive to the development of an
integrated internal community. At the same time, Common Ground
accommodation needs to be affordable and allow for the connection with the
broader community through proximity to appropriate transport routes, social
spaces and external support services.
Common Ground accommodation should be developed in consideration of the
following requirements:
5.1.1 Quality
Building quality is important in not only promoting pride in one’s place, but
also in ensuring high standards of sustainability, maintainability and
community acceptance.
The experience of the ACT’s A Place to Call Home program indicates that
high quality construction leads to lower unplanned maintenance costs,
reporting in 2009-10 that 100% of tenants had lower than average tenant
responsible maintenance.
In addition, the high quality A Place to call Home properties have been
constructed with high energy efficiency ratings, reducing utility costs for low
income tenants and contributing to overall affordability. The program reported
100% of tenants were less than $500 in arrears during 2009-10, indicating
that sustainable constructions also contribute to sustainable tenancies.
Importantly, Common Ground units should provide for personal space with
independent units rather than shared accommodation. Each unit should
contain bathroom, kitchen and laundry facilities, with a separation between
the bedroom and living areas.
Shared laundry facilities were cited as challenging by the Common Ground
team in Melbourne, as they had led to tenant disputes and reluctant usage. In
addition, homelessness sector consultations suggested that one bedroom
units are preferred over bedsits as they reduce feelings of institutionalisation
that can occur in largely bedsit complexes.
Ensuring high quality personal and common spaces will be required to meet
the requirements of the Australian Common Ground Alliance guidelines and to
encourage affordable housing tenancies, a critical component for the financial
viability of the model.
43
5.1.2 Security
Section 4.1.2 Safety (a) Physical Safety, highlights the need to provide CCTV
cameras in common and program spaces, swipe card access to the building
and units, and to ensure line of sight where possible to ensure the safety of
tenants and staff. In addition, a single, secure entry point will also allow for the
monitoring of guests entering and leaving the building and deter the presence
of unintended visitors who may present a risk to vulnerable tenants.
Careful planning during the design stage will be necessary to ensure a high
level of security whilst maintaining the sense of community integration
necessary to encourage interaction, inclusion and participation in formal
programs as well as informal gatherings.
5.1.3 Integrated Spaces
The level of social isolation experienced by chronically homeless people can
not be overestimated. It is important to ensure a range of spaces that allow for
varied levels of interaction within the Common Ground model. This has been
achieved in the Brisbane Common Ground through the creation of mini
neighbourhoods within the Common Ground community. Each group of
neighbours have their own common lounge and garden area, while the larger
community have access to the shared dining hall, program spaces and foyer
area.
It is important that Common Ground models allow for casual interaction
through flow through design principles rather than forcing interaction through
the construction of closed common spaces.
A shared multipurpose dining room can be used to promote integration
through shared community meals. The multipurpose dining room can also be
used to provide life skills training and offer the opportunity for a range of social
enterprise activities such as a café, catering or hospitality training. A
commercial kitchen servicing the shared dining room would be needed to
ensure flexible use of the space.
An external landscaped garden can also provide an important social element
within the Common Ground. This space should be designed to encourage
casual interaction and community gatherings within the protected environment
of the Common Ground. Outside spaces can be used to provide physical
engagement activities such as gardening and grounds maintenance. These
activities can also be used to provide employment and/or social enterprise
opportunities for tenants.
5.1.4 Service/Program Spaces
On-site services require appropriate facilities in order to protect the privacy of
tenants accessing these services. A medical treatment room can be used to
accommodate a range of outreach specialists providing services on-site.
44
Likewise, a welcoming and comfortable interview room can be used to provide
counseling services, psychiatric services and case management support.
The design of service spaces should complement the building to encourage a
sense of connection to the Common Ground model, whilst allowing for
discretion regarding which tenants are accessing these services. While line of
sight is important within common spaces, service spaces should allow for a
degree of anonymity without disregarding the need to ensure the safety of
service providers. Duress alarms could be considered in service rooms
subject to the tenant mix supported.
A dedicated program room can be used to provide educational and
engagement activities such as computer skills, literacy and numeracy, art
classes and other programs of interest. The program room should be lockable
after hours to ensure that computers and other costly items are secure.
In addition to the service spaces and program room, support staff offices and
a meeting room for case coordination should be available on-site.
5.1.4 Location
A location within close proximity to transport and services is important for
Common Ground. Many previously homeless and low income tenants will not
have access to personal transportation. Given that the majority of chronically
homeless people currently access free food, mental health and other services
in and around the city centre, it is important that the Common Ground be
accessible to those services.
This is particularly important given that the transition phase for chronically
homeless people is likely to involve the encouragement to access Common
Ground support services prior to committing to a formal lease agreement.
Locating the program within proximity to existing services or on an easily
accessible transport route will allow potential tenants to engage with the
Common Ground and current tenants to remain connected to existing support
networks.
5.1.5 Scale
Consideration of scale requires the analysis of demand associated with the
number of chronically homeless people requiring support in the ACT. Felicity
Reynold’s, Chair of the Australian Common Ground Alliance provides the
following definition for chronic homelessness:
“Chronic homelessness is a long term condition perpetuated by
complex needs such as developmental disability, mental illness, traumatic
brain injury, history of abuse, addictions, and so on (Reynolds, 2007:4)”.
In addition, it should be noted that not all chronically homeless people will
accept accommodation. This is supported by the Street to Home program who
45
reported on 27 October 2011, that 13 of the 16 rough sleepers supported at
that time were refusing any form of accommodation.
This is also consistent with ACT SAAP data 2010-11 that indicates that 29.6%
of accommodation offers were not accepted. In 25% of cases where
accommodation was not accepted, clients did not show up. A further 25%
were because the accommodation offer was not in the right area and 25%
because the client wanted a different type of accommodation option.
This indicates that the number of chronically homeless people who will accept
Common Ground accommodation at anyone time may be lower than the total
number requiring support. The following target criteria have been used to
assess demand in order to determine the appropriate scale:
a) Highly vulnerable
Vulnerability is a core requirement of eligibility for Common Ground and is
demonstrated by a range of complex needs as noted in the definition of
chronic homelessness provided. First Point data from census night 2011
indicates that 56 presenting units were identified as the most vulnerable
(Priority A), experiencing both significant housing need and significant support
needs. Of those, 28 were men and 28 were women.
b) Aged over 18 years
Consistent with findings from the Literature Review, Common Ground is not
targeted at youth. It is anticipated therefore, that tenancy allocation will focus
on those over 18 years of age. First Point data from census night 2011
indicates that 48 Priority A clients were aged over 18 years of age, with the
highest proportion aged 25 to 34 years of age.
c) Singles or couples
Given the restriction on accommodating children in Common Ground,
eligibility is restricted to singles and couples without children. First Point data
from census night 2011 indicates that 44 Priority A clients were singles. A
further 1 presenting unit was a couple without children.
d) Long term homeless (homeless for more than six months)
First Point data from census week 2011 indicates that 60% of Priority A clients
surveyed had been without their own place to stay for more than 6 months.
Considered in relation to the 45 Priority A singles or couples presenting, it is
estimated that the proportion of homeless people suitable for Common
Ground is around 27 people at any one time. It should be noted that this does
not take into consideration the number of singles or couples below 18 years of
age.
46
When the 70.4% accommodation uptake indicator is applied to the Priority A
eligible group, the total estimated demand is approximately 19 potential
tenancies at any one time.
The original definition used for chronic homelessness requires both significant
and long term homelessness, combined with high support needs. Under this
definition, Common Ground would be most suitable for Priority A clients,
creating a scale requirement of 40 units to allow for a 50:50 mix of previously
homeless and low income tenancies.
A 40 unit scale would also be consistent with homelessness sector feedback
suggesting a preference for a smaller Common Ground model in the ACT and
the ACT Government’s development strategy that has moved away from large
scale complexes where pockets of disadvantage can occur. This scale would
be suitable for 16 hours a day on-site support with on-call after hours, due to
the relatively low number of tenants with significant support needs.
A larger option was also investigated as a potential model for the ACT. The
larger facility would provide economies of scale to support higher levels of
security, such as a 24 hour concierge service. It would also enable more onsite support services to be delivered cost-effectively. The larger model was
estimated to cost approximately $24 million to construct and $970,000 per
annum in recurrent funding, compared to the smaller option that would cost
approximately $11 million dollars to construct and $700,000 per annum in
recurrent funding. Due to the increased operational costs associated with the
larger model, this option was judged to be unsupportable in the current budget
context and this report focuses on a 40 place facility.
5.2 Site Options
A range of site options were investigated as part of the feasibility study,
including vacant land and existing Housing ACT properties for redevelopment.
The impact on existing tenants was considered a significant barrier to the
redevelopment of Housing ACT stock, along with the need to ensure a
specific physical form as outlined in section 5.2.1 Requirements for the
Physical Form.
The requirement for a central location with proximity to transport and city
services restricted the availability of site options significantly, however, is
considered essential to the success of the model. The site options discussed
below represent the most suitable locations in terms of both proximity to the
city and capacity to construct the proposed scale for the Common Ground.
Each site presents a range of benefits and issues to be considered as
outlined below:
5.2.1 St Johns Site Reid
Vacant land is available on the St John’s Anglican Church site on
Amaroo Street in Reid. The church parish provided in-principle support for a
47
social housing development on the site, such as a Common Ground service
model. It is proposed that a Common Ground model be considered on the
section outlined in red on the site plan below:
a) Site Benefits
•
Location
The land is centrally located and close to transport, services and the adjacent
Canberra Institute of Technology (CIT). The site allows for a residential
building up to three storeys high and would take advantage of the Constitution
Avenue upgrades planned for November 2012. According to the National
Capital Plan, the Constitution Avenue upgrades will require an integrated
public transport system, a diversity of uses and active street frontage to
increase pedestrian activity and accompanying passive surveillance.
These upgrades aim to result in a vibrant and engaging street atmosphere in
direct proximity to the proposed site that will assist in creating a positive place
to live for Common Ground tenants.
•
Adjacent to CIT
The site offers the advantage of being located adjacent to the CIT, offering
potential training and educational opportunities for tenants and increasing the
ability to attract students that may contribute to a diverse tenant mix.
b) Site Issues
•
Proposed Road
48
Both CIT and the St John’s Diocese have produced master plans for their
sites that take into consideration a proposed road that may run from
Constitution Avenue to Amaroo Street, increasing the street frontage and
access to both sites.
While the road is not guaranteed at this stage, it is anticipated that the
proposed road would impact on the existing St John’s site by increasing the
commercial use of the site and reducing the current land availability.
Advice from the Directorate of Territory and Municipal Services indicates that
the Constitution Avenue upgrades will provide a driveway access for the
proposed road. In addition, the advice indicated that both CIT and St Johns
had supported the proposed road, with construction likely to utilize a portion of
both sites. A final decision on the proposed road would be required prior to
acceptance of the site for a Common Ground model.
•
Non-Government Ownership of Land
While the site provides for significant benefits in terms of the utilisation of
vacant inner city land, the significant investment required to construct the
building would need to be considered given that the site does not belong to
the ACT Government.
Constructing the Common Ground complex on land not owned by the
Government would require a Deed of Grant that would not allow for the
retention of the asset on the Government’s balance sheet. This would require
the Government to account for the full expense in the initial year rather than
through the depreciation of the asset over 40 years.
Mitigating the negative budgetary effects of constructing on non-government
land would require a suitable agreement with St John’s to lease the building
back to the Government for the effective life of the building. The significant
investment provided to construct the building would need to be provided on
the condition that the investment is used to purchase a 25 year lease (the
effective life of a building). This would allow the ACT Government to amortise
the right to lease the building over 25 years rather than depreciating the asset
over 40 years.
At the completion of the lease agreement, St Johns would have the right to
sell or retain the asset if they choose. Alternatively, building on Government
land would ensure the long term ownership of the asset.
•
Service Operation
The offer to utilise the vacant St John’s land has been provided on the
condition that Anglicare Canberra and Goulburn (a subsidiary of the Anglican
Church) are funded to operate the Common Ground model. The funding
required to operate the model is likely to exceed the threshold of the
Government Procurement Regulation Act 2009 that states that procurement
above $200,000 should be conducted through an open tender process.
49
Under the Act, the Director General may approve to waive the threshold
requirement subject to suitable conditions that determine a single organisation
as most suitable to provide the service required. In this case, the ownership of
the land combined with Anglicare’s experience in providing housing and
homelessness services in the ACT could be a suitable condition.
The provision of funding without a competitive tendering process may
however prevent the identification of services more suitable to the operation of
the model. In addition, the linking of funding to the ownership of land may
impact on the ability to respond to issues of underperformance should they
arise during the course of the agreement.
A Service Funding Agreement with Anglicare would need to be negotiated
that provides for the cessation of the funding arrangement under conditions of
underperformance, without restricting the continued use of the building under
the terms of the 40 year lease. These terms may impact on the land offer
provided by St John’s.
5.2.2 Community Facilities Land in Hackett
The ACT Government currently owns a vacant land site in Hackett. Block 12
of section 12 is classed as community facilities land that may be suitable for a
Common Ground development. It is proposed that a Common Ground model
be considered on the section outlined in red on the site plan below:
a) Site Benefits
•
Location
The site is located close to the city with effective transport routes available
nearby. The site is also located close to the Dickson shops and to nearby
50
crisis accommodation providers such as Samaritan House (men’s crisis
accommodation) and Toora House (women’s crisis accommodation).
Given that a large number of chronically homeless people are regular service
users of Samaritan House and Toora House, proximity to these services
would assist in the transition to Common Ground. Likewise, proximity to these
services would allow chronically homeless people not accommodated in
Common Ground to access the on-site support services.
•
Open space
The site is adjacent to playing fields that could be used to provide outside
physical activities and contribute to the development of a therapeutic
community for Common Ground tenants.
•
Privacy
The site is set back from the street with trees lining the Madigan Street
boundary and access limited to a small drive way on Maitland Street. This
would provide privacy for vulnerable tenants and increase the capacity to
monitor uninvited guests.
b) Site Issues
•
Adjoining Service Operators
The site forms part of the old Hackett school site which is currently shared by
a number of service providers including the Blue Gum Community School.
Consultation with current occupants would be required in the design and
planning stage to ensure appropriate separation between the Common
Ground and areas accessed by school children in particular.
This may also require significant consultation with Hackett residents and the
families of children attending Blue Gum Community School. Appropriate
design principles can be used to ensure that physical separation is maintained
while significant levels of on-site supports during school hours will assist in
managing the behaviour of complex tenants accommodated in Common
Ground.
•
Planning Issues
Although the site is classified as Community Facilities Land, a recent variation
to the Territory Plan has restricted the use of the site to disallow Supportive
Housing Development. The definition provided for Supportive Housing
requires the occupation of individuals to be “restricted by lease to persons
with special housing needs for reasons of age or disability”.
While Common Ground is not a Supportive Housing model according to this
definition, negotiation with the ACT Planning and Land Authority will be
required to determine if a Common Ground would be permissible on the site.
51
5.2.3 Surplus Property in Belconnen
A surplus ACT Government property site exists in Belconnen that could be
suitable for a Common Ground development. The site is currently the old
police station and is set for redevelopment in 2.5-3 years time. It is anticipated
that an earlier development date may be considered if a proposed Common
Ground development is accepted for the site. It is proposed that a Common
Ground model be considered on the section outlined in red on the site plan
below:
a) Site Benefits
The site is located directly behind the Belconnen bus interchange, providing
easy access to city services. The proximity to both the Belconnen commercial
and services areas also provide a range of employment opportunities for both
previously homeless and low income tenants.
In addition to the employment and transportation benefits, the site offers the
advantage of being within close proximity to the ACT Government Shop Front,
Centrelink, Medical Centre, and a range of ancillary services including,
optical, dentistry, and physiotherapy.
The site is also within close proximity to the CIT’s Bruce campus and the
Calvary Hospital, both accessible from the bus interchange opposite the site.
The 2,800m2 site will allow for a four to six storey development with active
street frontage creating a mix use site that could accommodate a range of
community and specialist services.
In addition to the Common Ground development, the site would have the
capacity to include additional affordable housing apartments to encourage key
workers and other tenants to move into the area.
b) Site Issues
52
The surrounding area currently does not have any residential developments,
reducing opportunities for neighbourhood integration outside of the Common
Ground complex. It is proposed that a precinct plan be developed to allow for
further residential development both in conjunction with the Common Ground
proposed for the site and in the surrounding area where appropriate.
5.2.4 Summary of Site Options
All three sites offer advantages in relation to proximity to services and
transport routes. All three also have issues identified that may impact on the
suitability of the sites for a Common Ground model. It is proposed that all
three sites be pursued as potential site options subject to the resolution of
issues identified and consultation with key stakeholders including local
residents and business owners.
53
Part 6: Financial Modelling
6.1 Funding Requirements
6.1.1 Capital Funding Needs
The physical accommodation requirements discussed in section
5.1 Requirements for the Physical Form are outlined below:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
40 one bedroom units complete with bathroom, kitchen and laundry
facilities;
Multipurpose dining room with commercial kitchen;
Medical treatment room;
Interview room;
Program room;
Common Ground office;
Case coordination/meeting room;
Landscaped garden;
Secure basement car parking;
CCTV Cameras in common areas and service/program spaces;
Single, secure entry point (monitored by CCTV and intercom access);
and
Swipe card access to building and individual units.
Based on the construction costs funding formula used by Housing ACT, it is
estimated that the Common Ground will cost approximately $11 million to
construct. These estimates include design services and associated fees. Due
to the significant costs associated with constructing the Common Ground, it is
anticipated that Federal Government support may be required.
Additional capital expenditure may also be required for the further
development of the Belconnen site should this option be chosen for the
Common Ground. Further development of the site would be outside of the
scope of the Common Ground and would require partnering with an
established affordable housing provider, the Federal Government (under the
NRAS scheme), and/ or other private developers.
6.1.2 Recurrent Funding Needs
The table below represents the estimated costs for operating a 40 unit
Common Ground model with 16 hours a day of on-site and after hours on-call
support. Aside from the on-site support workers, the estimated costing also
allows for a dedicated program officer, a tenancy manager and a program
coordinator:
54
Estimated Costs Per Annum- 40 units (16 hour on-site
and after hours on-call support)
Staff Costs
$566,000
Admin costs
$68,000
Transport costs
$15,000
Rent costs
-$54,000
Meal costs
$13,000
Program costs
$52,000.00
Brokerage costs
$40,000.00
Funding Allocation
$700,000
It is recommended that the rental income received from social housing and
previously homeless tenants be remitted directly to Housing ACT. This would
enable Housing ACT to provide cost effective maintenance services using
economies of scale that span the broader social housing system.
Given the ineligibility of affordable housing tenants for the Housing ACT rental
rebate, it is recommended that Common Ground remit 33.3% of full market
rent to Housing ACT and retains the difference between the amount remitted
and 75% of full market rent received from the tenant. The amount retained has
been factored into the costing tables to partially offset operational expenses.
Recurrent costs per tenant would be lower under a larger scale model
because the fixed component of these costs can be spread over a larger
number. However, as noted earlier, this option has not been put forward in the
report due to concerns over the costs and risks associated with a larger scale.
6.1.3 Additional First Year Expenses
In addition to the recurrent funding estimated, additional expenses during the
first year are outlined below:
Additional First Year Costs
Security Patrol
Set up packages (20 x previously homeless units only)
Total additional costs
Funding Allocation
$54,600
$100,000
$154,600
$160,000
The costing model above allows for a nightly security patrol for the first 12
months. The experience of other jurisdictions suggests that security
requirements are greater during the initial 12 months as stabilisation of the
community takes place. This is essential in order to establish an appropriate
and beneficial culture from the start of the service.
Set up packages for previously homeless tenants have also been allowed.
Partnership opportunities may also be possible to offset this expense. This will
be discussed further in section 6.4.3 Private Business and Philanthropic.
55
6.2 Cost/Benefit Analysis
6.2.1 Reduced Emergency Service Use
Street to Home client data indicates that 9 out of 20 rough sleepers assisted
were reported as accessing emergency services over the past six months. Of
those services accessed, 14 clients were picked up by the Police for criminal
activities, 3 clients visited hospital emergency wards for assessment and
treatment, 4 clients visited the Psychiatric Services Unit, 6 clients were
assisted by the Mental Health Crisis Team, and 8 clients accessed emergency
accommodation services.
Of those services accessed, Street to Home estimate that overnight
accommodation comprised of approximately 3 nights in police custody,
12 nights in the Psychiatric Services Unit, and 56 nights in emergency
accommodation services.
While the service highlights that many incidents may have gone unreported,
the results indicate that around 50% of chronically homeless people
repeatedly access emergency services as a result of sleeping rough. In
addition, the Street to Home team noted that a number of clients admitted to
breaking the law in order to gain access to shelter, especially in winter.
Average costs for providing emergency services are outlined below:
Emergency Service
Crisis Accommodation
Prison
Emergency Room Visit
Mental Health Bed
Hospital Bed
Cost Per
Night
$133
$276
$439
$702
$1,100
Sources (cited by the Australian Common Ground Alliance 2011, Common Ground: A cost
effective permanent supportive housing solution)
1. Crisis Accommodation- Australian institute of Health and Welface (AIHW)
Government-funded specialist homelessness services SAAP National Data
Collection Annual report 2008-2009
2. Prison- Productivity Commission: Report on Government Services 2010
3. Emergency Room Visit- Department of Health and Ageing (September 2009):
National Hospital Cost Data Collection Cost report, Round 12 (2007-08); table
10A.71 (average of non-triage levels 1 to 5)
4. Mental Health bed- Federal Department of Health (2007-2008) figures: National
Mental Health Report 2010
5. Hospital bed- AIHW August 2009: Estimating the impact of selected National
Health and Hospitals Reform Commission (NHHRC) reforms on health care
expenditure, 2003 to 2033 (acute care bed)
Based on the figures above, the nine frequent emergency service users
identified by Street to Home cost approximately $36,034 per year ($4,004
per person per year) in emergency service use alone. Those people cost a
further $11,967 per year to be supported by the Street to Home team,
56
creating a total cost of $15,971 per year to support on the street.
This does not take into consideration the cost of providing free food
services and other charitable services supporting their basic needs. Given
the additional resources provided an estimation of the total cost for
supporting chronically homeless people would be closer to $20,000 per
year.
While a direct relationship can not be drawn between emergency service
use and cost savings, other Common Ground models have indicated
dramatic reductions in emergency service usage once clients are
accommodated in supportive and stable housing.
In addition, social benefits are associated with reduced emergency service
use, including reduced demand on emergency services and improvements
in individual wellbeing for chronically homeless people.
6.2.2 Cost Comparison with Existing Accommodation Models
Given the social imperative to end chronic homelessness, a more effective
cost benefits analysis would compare the costs of supporting people in a
Common Ground model compared to other Housing First models already
operating in the ACT.
Residential Services
Housing And Support
Initiative (HASI)
Managed Accommodation
Programs (MAP)
Common Ground
$33,945 per year
$93 per day
$49,640 per year
$136 per day
$35,000 per year
$96 per day
Sources
1. HASI- ACT National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness Annual Report
2009-10 p 53
2. MAP-ACT National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness Annual Report
2009-10 p 49
The cost comparison outlined above indicates that supporting chronically
homeless people in a Common Ground model is a cost equivalent model for
individuals that would not meet the requirements of the Mental Health
Housing and Assistance Program or the Managed Accommodation Programs.
Both of those programs target individuals exiting institutions, including the
Psychiatric Services Unit and the Alexander Machonochie Centre.
A Common Ground model would provide a Housing First model that would not
require direct previous involvement with institutions. This would meet the
needs of chronically homeless people with a diversity of needs and
circumstances.
57
6.3 Identification of Financial Challenges
A range of initial and ongoing financial challenges need to be considered in
order to ensure that the Common Ground model is capable of supporting
chronically homeless individuals. These issues are discussed below:
6.3.1 Ongoing Security Needs
The experience of other Common Ground models in Australia suggest that
security requirements reduce over time, as stable communities are
established. Reducing the physical presence of security after hours will be an
important element in moving towards an independent and self sustaining
community.
At the same time, as new tenants move in to the Common Ground, issues of
safety may arise that requires reinstating of security arrangements after the
first 12 months. Capacity to ensure the ongoing safety of all tenants should be
retained to some extent. This may require financial partnerships or pro bono
security services, subject to the needs of the program in future years.
6.3.2 Set Up of Units and Common Spaces
While the budget outlined in section 6.1.3 Additional First Year Expenses
provides for set up costs for the previously homeless units, additional
furnishings will be required for common spaces, treatment rooms and program
specific spaces. This may also include items such as computers, art
equipment, and medical equipment that are beyond the scope of the original
funding model.
In addition, ongoing set up costs will be required as tenants move onto other
accommodation options. Items such as linen and basic pantry items will be
required as new previously homeless tenants move into the complex. The
experience of other Common Ground models in Australia suggests that
business and philanthropic partnerships may be sourced to meet both initial
and/or ongoing set up costs.
6.3.3 Brokering Additional Services
A significant component of the Common Ground model will be ensuring
access to mainstream and specialist services. Brokering these services may
be required where access is limited or where extended wait lists are unable to
meet instances of urgent need.
In particular, homelessness sector consultations highlighted the need to
provide general medical and dental services. It was noted that extended wait
lists for medicare funded practitioners creates a significant barrier for people
with complex needs in the ACT.
58
The Street to Home program has recently received support from the Calvary
Hospital to provide a general practitioner and nurse on a pro bono basis as
part of the night patrol service.
Likewise, the South Australian Common Ground has received pro bono
support from the University of South Australia Dental School who will be
providing services on-site for all Common Ground tenants and the broader
homelessness sector.
Brokering support from local practitioners, medical schools and ancillary
services through either pro bono or financial arrangements may be required to
meet the diverse needs of individual tenants of the Common Ground.
6.3.4 Reliance on Affordable Housing Rental Returns
As previously discussed, the financial viability of the model is contingent on
the attraction of affordable housing renters. Victoria and South Australia have
reported that the maintenance of target percentages of affordable renters has
been difficult. Sydney however has reported no difficulties and Brisbane and
Hobart are yet to be tenanted. The States and Territories have agreed to
share information on this issue. Additional funding for the program may be
required if affordable housing renters can not be attracted into the Common
Ground model.
6.4 Partnership Opportunities
In order to meet the initial and ongoing financial challenges associated with
the Common Ground model, partnership opportunities must be considered.
Such partnerships include both financial and non-financial arrangements to
provide the breadth of service and support functions necessary to an effective
service model.
6.4.1 Other Directorates and Mainstream Services
As outlined in section 4.2.3 Integrated Service Delivery, partnership with
relevant Directorates and Mainstream Service providers will be an essential
component of a Common Ground model. This will require both high level
commitment (through a Service Partnership Agreement), and practice level
cooperation (through the multidisciplinary team) to ensure a coordinated and
consistent approach.
The University of Canberra’s Faculty of Health Clinics provides services in the
areas of exercise physiology, dietetics, physiotherapy, pharmacy, and
psychology. It may be possible to establish linkages through the clinics to
provide the mutually beneficial exchange of clinical experience for final year
students with the provision of supervised allied health services for previously
homeless tenants. This has been achieved in the South Australian Common
Ground through the recently established partnership with the University of
South Australia Dentistry School as discussed in section
6.3.3 Brokering Additional Services.
59
6.4.2 Commonwealth Government
In 2011, the Commonwealth Government announced the opening of the
Camperdown Common Ground model in Sydney. Then Minister for Social
Housing and Homelessness the Honorable Mark Arbib announced that the
Common Ground model would provide a basis for future efforts to address
homelessness in Australia.
Given the significant costs associated with establishing a Common Ground
model, Commonwealth support would likely be required to assist in the
construction of the Common Ground complex. Despite the Commonwealth
Government’s commitment to Common Ground models, the recent
correspondence with the Commonwealth suggests that federal funding
support for a Common Ground construction in the ACT may not be available
The Commonwealth Government’s inability to commit to supporting a
Common Ground development in the ACT will make it difficult for the ACT
Government to fund the construction at this stage. Alternative options may
need to be explored.
6.4.3 Private Business and Philanthropic
Private business and philanthropic contributions can provide a unique
opportunity to engage the broader ACT community in addressing chronic
homelessness through practical and meaningful partnerships. Such
partnerships have been the cornerstone of many Common Ground models
that recognise that homelessness is a social issue that requires a whole of
society effort.
Whether through the donation of goods such as furniture, services such as
legal advice, or direct financial contributions for the brokering of specialist
supports, business and philanthropic partnerships have the capacity to make a
significant impact on the capacity of the program to effectively meet the
diversity of tenant needs.
Organisations such as Social Ventures Australia (SVA), have committed to
developing business and philanthropic partnerships to support social
objectives. The Social Enterprise Hub established by SVA can provide a range
of business supports including legal advice, marketing and website
development that could be harnessed by the Common Ground to support
social enterprise activities on-site. Social Enterprises provide for real
employment and training opportunities for disadvantaged people, including the
opportunity to encourage social inclusion and positive self esteem.
The experience of the Our Place youth housing model indicates that such
partnerships are difficult to broker and require substantial effort to obtain and
maintain. The dedicated program officer would have a significant role to play in
networking with and encouraging support from the business and philanthropic
sectors as a core business activity for the model. These activities must be
60
allowed for and factored into the position to ensure that partnerships sought
reflect the needs and interests of the tenant group.
In addition, the Common Ground Canberra Group has also been actively
involved in developing business and philanthropic partnerships should the
Common Ground model be developed in the ACT. It is anticipated that such
partnerships will play a significant role in meeting the financial challenges
outlined in section 6.3 Identification of Financial Challenges.
6.4.4 Common Ground Canberra and ACGA.
As discussed in section 4.2.2 Governance, the Common Ground Group in
Canberra would have an important role to play in the promotion and delivery of
Common Ground objectives. The group provides an important link to the
business and philanthropic sectors and would assist in providing advice on
Common Ground learnings from other jurisdictions through their involvement
with the Australian Common Ground Alliance.
The Common Ground Group in Canberra would provide both practical and
strategic advice on the application process for utilisation of the Common
Ground name, and would work with both the service provider/s and the
Evaluative Body to ensure that any Common Ground model developed in
Canberra would meet the needs of both the Australian Common Ground
Alliance and key Common Ground partners.
61
Part 7: Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
The feasibility study identified that a Common Ground model developed in
consideration of the unique needs of the ACT could assist in ending
homelessness for chronically homeless people. The service model options
outlined through this report provide for an integrated and responsive Housing
First model, incorporating mainstream, business and community partnerships.
A range of issues were raised in relation to the identification and allocation of
Common Ground tenancies, location issues, and financial challenges. It was
considered inappropriate for Common Ground to accommodate children,
however it was further noted that the safety of children visiting and around the
site must also be ensured.
The design of the building is considered crucial to the success of the model in
allowing for interaction and community inclusion whilst providing for the
security and protection of vulnerable tenants. A diverse tenant mix will be
essential in reducing the risk of creating a pocket of disadvantage and in
normalising the living environment for people with complex needs.
Importantly, the feasibility study indicates that Common Ground provides a
cost equivalent model for addressing chronic homelessness, and could
potentially contribute to reduced use of emergency services by people
currently living on the streets.
The imperative to end chronic homelessness was discussed in relation to the
reduced life expectancy and vulnerability associated with living on the streets.
This imperative has been a commitment of the ACT Government throughout
the last decade. Common Ground provides an opportunity to create real in
roads on the path to ending chronic homelessness through the provision of
secure and affordable housing. It is also noted that the model requires
significant capital and recurrent funding, which would likely be dependent on
both Commonwealth and ACT Government support. A summary table of the
model proposed is provided below:
Specifications
Aim
Target
Restrictions
Scale
Support
Capital Costs
Recurrent Funding
Additional First Year Funding
Cost per previously homeless
tenancy
Addressing Chronic Homelessness
Priority A (Significant Housing Needs and Significant Support Needs)
Must be over 18 years of age, singles and couples without children, and
homeless for more than six months
40 units
16 hour a day on-site supports with after hours on-call support
$11 million
$700,000
$160,000
$35,000
62
7.2 Recommendations
A summary of the recommendations made throughout this report are included
below:
1. It is recommended that the ACT Government consider the
establishment of a Common Ground Housing First model to assist in
addressing chronic homelessness for highly vulnerable people in the
ACT.
2. It is recommended that the service model consider the following
components:
a) The model should target singles and couples without children,
and should aim for an equal tenant mix between low income
tenants (including both social housing and affordable housing)
and previously homeless tenants;
b) The model should allow for the appropriate level of on-site
support according to the preferred option outlined in section 7.1.
c) The model should ensure the separation of tenancy
management and support worker roles;
d) The model should allow for transfers between Common Ground
and alternative social housing options where required;
e) The model should be based on a case coordination model,
assisting tenants to access mainstream services where
possible;
f)
The model should employ a dedicated Program Officer to
ensure the coordination of social inclusion and engagement
activities for Common Ground tenants;
g) The model should allow for a diverse entry point system to
identify chronic homeless people suitable for Common Ground;
and
h) The model should utilise the social housing register and external
advertisement for the identification of low income tenants, with
selection of tenants based on an assessed capacity to
effectively participate in the Common Ground community.
3. It is recommended that the physical form consider the following
components:
a)
b)
c)
d)
The physical form should contain appropriate levels of physical
safety measures including; CCTV cameras, swipe card access,
single entry point, and line of sight through common spaces;
The physical form should contain 40 one bedroom units,
including individual bathrooms, kitchens, and laundry facilities;
The physical form should include a range of spaces that allow
for varied levels of interaction, a multipurpose space with kitchen
facilities, and external landscaped garden;
The physical form should include a medical treatment room,
interview room, service provider offices, a meeting room for
case coordination, and a dedicated program room; and
63
e)
The physical form should be determined in consideration of the
final site chosen for the Common Ground.
4. It is recommended that the funding model consider the following
components:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
The funding model should allow for previously homeless and
social housing tenants to pay 25% of income in rent, remitted to
Housing ACT;
The funding model should allow for affordable housing tenants
to pay 75% of full market rent with 33.3% remitted to Housing
ACT and the balance retained by the service provider;
The funding model should allow for $11million for the
construction of the ACT Common Ground;
The funding model should allow for $700,000 in recurrent
funding for the operation of the ACT Common Ground; and
The funding model should allow for $160,000 in the initial year
for additional security and set up expenses.
5. It is recommended that the partnership framework consider the
following components;
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
The partnership framework should include cooperation between
the ACT Government and the ACT Common Ground Group
(CGG), with the CGG responsible for fundraising, networking
and capacity building;
The partnership framework should establish an evaluative body
to assess the impact of the Common Ground on tenant
outcomes;
The partnership framework should include a high level Service
Partnership Agreement between ACT Government Directorates
responsible for the delivery of services to people with complex
needs;
The partnership framework should establish a Multidisciplinary
Team of mainstream workers from partner Directorates to
provide case coordination support for Common Ground tenants;
The partnership framework should investigate opportunities for
partnerships with student clinics, pro-bono service providers,
business and philanthropic organizations that can support the
objectives of the Common Ground; and
The partnership framework should investigate opportunities for
partnerships with the Commonwealth Government to support
the financing of the Common Ground development.
64
Appendix A: Literature Review on Housing
First
This Literature review seeks to analyse existing research on the Housing First
approach and associated service models, including Common Ground. The
findings of this literature review will inform the further development of an
effective Housing First service model for the ACT context.
It is recognised that many Housing First models do not provide ongoing and
assertive support. For the purpose of this paper, Housing- First is defined as
long term accommodation provided within an assertive support framework.
While Housing First models have been successfully established in the USA,
the UK and other parts of Australia, the unique characteristics of the ACT
mean that establishing an effective model for the Territory will require tailoring
and modification to ensure the right people are accommodated and the right
amount of support is available to meet their needs.
Understanding the core elements of the Housing First approach will be
necessary in order to determine the right mix of accommodation and support
for the ACT context. At the same time, it is important to recognise that the
practical application of Housing First models have been as diverse as the
contexts in which they have been applied.
This section shall therefore, examine existing research and evaluations from a
range of service models and research sources according to the following key
themes:
•
•
•
•
•
Core elements of Housing First;
Targets;
Service models, including accommodation and supports;
Cost benefits; and
Effectiveness.
This thematic analysis of the existing literature will form the basis of the
feasibility study into the development of an appropriate Housing First approach
for the ACT context.
Core elements of Housing First models
The core elements of the Housing First philosophy are that:
•
•
Housing is not contingent on acceptance of support or on sobriety;
Long-term stable accommodation is provided with the coordination
of individualised supports according to the needs of the person or
person/s accommodated; and
65
•
Assertive outreach is provided to encourage tenants to address
underlying issues that may lead to repeat periods of homelessness
in the future (City of Melbourne 2007:3).
More specifically, the core elements of Common Ground Housing First
models are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Permanence- there is no time limit on tenure (for formally homeless
tenants);
Safety- a 24 hour concierge service is provided to ensure security of
access;
Supportive- On site support services are provided free of charge;
Integrated- there is a tenant mix of previously homeless and low
income renters;
Affordable- rent is paid at no more than 30% of income; and
Quality- services operate from high quality and sustainably designed
complexes. (Gilmore and Wheaden, 2010:16)
Housing First is based on the premise that stable housing is needed to
address complex issues such as drug and alcohol addiction and mental
illness, rather than the traditional approach that requires such issues to be
addressed before a person can qualify for housing. In addition, the Housing
First approach asserts that providing long term housing quickly and in
combination with adequate support, is important in securing long-term
stabilisation for chronically homeless people (Hansen 2010: 117-119).
Johnsen and Teixeira (2010) assert that Housing First models seek to avoid
the linear pathway of crisis, transitional and long term accommodation, by
moving people directly into long term housing straight away. They attribute the
origins of the Housing First philosophy to US psychiatrist Dr Sam Tsemberis
from the New York ‘Pathways to Housing Organisation’ who used the model
initially to support homeless people with mental health issues before adapting
it to support homeless people with substance addictions. Key to Dr Tsemberis’
philosophy was that treatment should be a choice, where housing should be
considered a right (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:6).
The traditional linear housing model which moves homeless people through
accommodation types based on compliance with sobriety and predetermined
rules for independence is a “treatment first” approach rather than a “Housing
First” approach (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010).
Although linear/treatment first approaches have been successful for some, for
others with complex needs, such an approach can lead to attrition as clients
fail to move on from one stage to the next (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:8-9).
Johnsen and Teixeira note that attrition can result from the sense of instability
created, the lowering of supports over time, the lack of tailored support and
autonomy, and the failure to respond adequately to complex clients that do not
readily conform (2010:9).In addition, research into the treatment of both
psychiatric disorders and addictions have indicated that recovery does not
occur in a linear fashion, but requires individually tailored support capable of
66
meeting the varying levels of need through out the life of the problem being
addressed (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:9).
Unlike the linear/treatment first approach, Housing First does not require
individuals to prove that they are housing ready. (Reynolds 2007). Housing
First aims to move individuals quickly from the street to the home once
agreement has been made to move into accommodation, rather than waiting
for the person to transition through crisis and transitional accommodation
services. As noted above, under a Housing First model, support is available to
the person accommodated however housing is not contingent on acceptance
of support (Reynolds 2007:38), hence allowing for the accommodation of
individuals with complex needs that may not be ready or willing to accept
support in order to access housing.
Although engaging in support is not a condition of the housing, residential
tenancy laws still apply (Reynolds 2007:38). In this respect it is common in
Housing First models to separate the management of the tenancy from the
provision of support. Since landlords generally cannot impose discriminative
rules on properties, for example, a no tolerance alcohol ban, like wise a
Housing First approach can only address disruptive behaviours that may
transgress tenancy laws (Reynolds 2007:39). This approach ensures that
people with substance abuse issues can still access housing with the focus
given to harm minimisation and behaviour modification strategies where
necessary to protect their tenancy.
The separation of tenancy and support functions is a key feature of many
Supportive Housing First models such as the Common Ground project on
Elizabeth Street, Melbourne which is delivered through a collaborative
partnership of a community housing provider acting as the building owner and
tenancy manager, a support provider delivering on site support and concierge,
and the Victorian Government and a private developer constructing the
purpose built apartment complex (Jope 2010:17).
By separating access to housing from clinical compliance, the Housing First
model aims to create an environment of physical stability from which further
stability in ones mental and emotional wellbeing can develop over time.
Target
The Commonwealth Government’s The Road Home- A National Strategy for
Reducing Homelessness(The Road Home) notes that specialist homelessness
services that combine long-term stable accommodation with supports should
be targeted at homeless families, older and chronically homeless people, and
young people experiencing homelessness (Department of Families, Housing,
Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) 2008:49).
In a 2007 report titled To Examine Programs that Assist Vulnerable and
Complex Chronically Homeless People, Felicity Reynolds notes “Chronic
Homelessness is not Homelessness” (Reynolds, 2007:4). While anyone, at
anytime can experience homelessness due to family breakdown, disaster, or
illness, chronic homelessness is a long term condition perpetuated by complex
67
needs such as developmental disability, mental illness, traumatic brain injury,
history of abuse, addictions, and so on (Reynolds, 2007:4).
Johnsen and Teixeira define people with complex support needs as “those
with moderate to severe mental health problems and/or active substance
abuse problems (drugs, alcohol, or polysubstance misuse)” (Johnsen and
Teixeira 2010:1). Johnsen and Teixeira further point out that Housing First
models target the most vulnerable people who would be less capable of
transitioning through the traditional linear homelessness system (Johnsen and
Teixeira 2010:7).
Housing First therefore is most suitable for addressing long-term
homelessness and is not designed to provide early intervention or prevention
for individuals and families experiencing homelessness for the first time
(Gordon 2007). Given the complexity of needs associated with long term and
chronic homelessness, an in depth assessment of ongoing support and
accommodation needs is required prior to accommodating individuals or
families in Housing First service models (Gordon 3007:2).
An analysis of existing literature on Housing First models provides valuable
input into the appropriateness of this service philosophy for a range of subgroups as discussed below:
Chronically Homeless Singles
Elderly
Older homeless people often face significantly greater disadvantages than
other older people and are more likely to experience mental illness, physical
and cognitive impairment (FaHCSIA 2008:61). In addition older homeless
people are more likely to have been homeless for longer periods of time and
have a higher prevalence of drug and alcohol addiction (FaHCSIA 2008:61).
Johnson and Teixeira note that older homeless people are more likely to
maintain their housing long term as they are less likely to leave due to physical
limitations (2010:12).
Research indicates that Housing First for older people should combine quality
accommodation located close to transport and services, with support services
such as house keeping, transport and laundry (Jope 2010:30-31). In addition,
these service models should provide regular check ups and social inclusion
activities for older tenants and linkage with externally provided aged care and
health care services (Jope 2010:30-31).
Mental Health
An evaluation of the Mental Health Housing and Support Initiative (HASI) in
NSW indicated that men under 34 years of age with diagnosed schizophrenia
are the predominant client group requiring accommodation and support
(Fisher, Muir, Dadich, Abello & Bleasdale 2007:2). In addition, the report
highlights that 71% of tenants indicated improved mental health as a
68
consequence of the program, which combines long-term stable
accommodation with assertive outreach support (Fisher et.al. 2007:2).
Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Ganann, Krisharatne and Ciliska (2011) compared the
effectiveness of the Housing First approach for homeless people with both
mental illness and drug and alcohol dependencies. The report indicated that
homelessness decreased by 66% for clients housed first as opposed to the
control group, with substance abuse treatment also reducing for those clients
(Fitzpatrick et.al. 2011:13).
Drug and Alcohol
Fitzpatrick-Lewis et.al also compared the results of housing homeless people
with drug and alcohol addictions in abstinence dependent and non-abstinence
dependent accommodation. While co-morbidity results favoured
non-abstinence dependent accommodation, the report showed that in the
absence of mental illness, long term drug and alcohol abstinence was more
effectively achieved when accommodation was contingent upon sobriety
(Fitzpatrick et.al. 2011:12).
Dr Tsembris’ Housing First philosophy however is based on a harm
minimisation practice rather than requiring abstinence from substance use, in
recognition that housing should be separated from a person’s addiction rather
than contingent upon treatment (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:7). While
abstinence from substance use is not required, Johnsen and Teixeira provide
evidence that substance use leads to greater tenancy failures than mental
health alone because substance use increases the risk of disruptive and
criminal behaviours that could impact upon tenancy requirements, for
example, allowing others to occupy the premises to conduct drug deals
(Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:12).
The results highlight that Housing First can be appropriate for homeless
people with combined mental illness and substance addictions however, care
is required in accommodating individuals with substance addictions alone.
Families
The Road Home, notes that 2,000 families were accommodated in Australian
homelessness services for over six months in 2006-2007 (FaHCSIA 2008:46).
The strategy further highlights the need for families to move quickly from
homelessness into long term stable accommodation, noting that a large
number of people experiencing homelessness will transition through multiple
homelessness services before stable accommodation can be achieved
(FaHCSIA 2008:46).
The ACT NPAH Annual Report 2009-10 also recognises that pathways
through homelessness can create hurdles for homeless families that make
stabilisation of complex needs difficult to overcome (DHCS 2010:17).
Given the unique needs of family groups as opposed to homeless singles,
Housing First models for families must consider appropriate housing options
69
that allow for children’s recreation and development of social and motor skills
(Jope 2010).
In addition, support services should include access to childcare and after
school recreation, as well as child and family support services such as
counselling and family health care (Jope 2010: 27). Jope (2010) notes that
scattered sites or small residential complexes are best for this target group.
Young People
The Road Home notes that young people experiencing homelessness may
also benefit from long-term accommodation options that are linked to
participation in education and employment (FaHCSIA 2008:47). The strategy
highlights that such models would benefit young people who require support
and mentoring to attain independence (FaHCSIA 2008:47).
Johnsen and Teixeira however suggest that permanent long term housing is
not necessary for young people experiencing homelessness and that existing
transitional models are most suitable for this target group, citing evidence that
young people are less likely to sustain their housing long term (Malone 2009
cited in Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:2).
The ACT’s Our Place initiative is focused on accommodating and supporting
young people aged 16-25 in order to create long term stable housing and
engagement with education and employment services. The service provides
stability of tenure without the permanence required of Housing First service
models. In this way, Our Place seeks to encourage young people to move on
into independent living once education, training and employment goals are
achieved (DHCS 2010:55).
Given the evidence discussed above, Housing First is considered most
appropriate for chronically homeless singles and families with multiple risk
indicators such as mental health, substance use and domestic violence.
Housing First service models should however consider the differing needs of
each target sub-group when determining the appropriate service model.
Service Models
Accommodation Types
Although the majority of Housing First models utilise apartment complexes
aimed at accommodating single homeless people, a range of accommodation
compositions have been established from small to large-scale complexes and
with a mix of allocations to homeless and low-income people of between 50%
to 100% (City of Melbourne 2007:4). In addition, the levels of on site support
vary across Housing First models with larger complexes requiring a higher
concentration of support hours than smaller residential units (City of
Melbourne 2007:4).
Jope (2010:37) identifies three accommodation types suitable for Housing
First developments as outlined below:
70
i)
Scattered single site in which various apartments that are scattered
through out a complex are dedicated to the target group but not readily
recognisable. This type would allow for normalising and community
integration within the broader complex for individuals with medium to
high intensity support needs.
ii) Clustered in which smaller complexes are dedicated entirely to the
target group to encourage peer support. This type would be most
suitable for low-medium needs individuals that would benefit from the
support of other residents but don’t necessarily require intensive
support.
iii) Set aside units in which sections within a larger complex are reserved
for the target group to maximise supports for those with higher support
needs. This type in particular would require adequate security and
access considerations to be included in the building design, such as
swipe cards, CCTVs and concierge requirements (Jope 2010:37-39).
Gordon concurs that security on Housing First complexes is important given
the vulnerability of residents and the complexity of issues that chronically
homeless people experience (2007:3).
It is also noted that while large scale complexes create economic efficiencies,
high-density complexes are not the preferred model for people with significant
disabilities. (O’Hare and Day, 2001:11)
Pathways to Housing
Unlike other approaches, the Pathways to Housing philosophy originally
espoused by Dr Tsemberis asserted that accommodation should be scattered
through out the community in order to create a normalising environment and
encourage community integration (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:7). In addition,
Dr Tsemberis’ model involved privately rented properties head leased by the
support provider with a maximum of 15% of properties within any complex to
be used for homelessness accommodation (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:7).
Gordon (2007:2) concurs that accommodation options need not be limited to
public housing supply and could consist of private rental subsidies, community
housing or purpose built designs. Gordon (2007:3) further notes that
accommodation should be of a desirable quality to encourage a sense of pride
in one’s place and must be affordable, with rent charged at no more than 30%
of the tenant’s income.
The 2007 evaluation of the NSW Mental Health Housing and Support Initiative
(HASI) indicated that the majority of HASI tenants lived alone in two bedroom
apartments, with co-tenancy recognised as a barrier to long term stabilisation
(Fisher et.al. 2007:2). The evaluation did however show that a cluster model
approach was considered effective where there were no more than 3-4
tenants located within the cluster and where there was adequate consideration
given to the tenancy mix (Fisher et.al. 2007:2).
71
Hansen argues that congregating groups of homeless people together has led
to instances of functional homelessness and disadvantage in some cases, and
cautions against unconsidered cluster models in developing a Housing First
approach (2010:122).
Other variations on the Pathways Housing First model have been created in
which large apartment complexes are used rather than dispersed properties
within the community, with some variations placing time restrictions on how
long a person can stay accommodated before moving on to other long term
accommodation options (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:8).
Common Ground
Common Ground is one variation is which apartments are used to house
complex needs homeless people along side low-income renters. This model
provides permanent supportive housing with on site support for as long as the
tenant requires (Johnsen &Teixeira 2010:13). The model originally developed
in New York, provides a Housing First approach with assertive on site support,
accommodating people from the streets in newly converted inner city
apartments (Jope 2010:16). The original model used a partnership framework
to redevelop abandoned hotels into affordable housing sites catering for 50%
low income and 50% previously homeless tenants (Jope 2010:16-17).
Common Ground was successful in reducing street homelessness in New
York by 87% during the initial two years and reports an average length of
tenure of 4.8 years (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010). Common Ground charges
tenants 30% of income, be it Government pension or employment income, and
has through self-evaluation reduced the eligibility requirements so that
acceptance of mental health and substance use treatment is no longer
required. The changes also removed exemptions for recently evicted
homeless people and those having been released from correctional facilities
(Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:14).
Supports
Housing First models recognise that housing is not enough to help chronically
homeless people to address underlying issues. Housing must be combined
with support to achieve longer term outcomes such as sustained accessing of
health care and psychiatric services and reduced substance dependence
(Fitzpatrick et.al. 2011:23).
The Road Home highlights the need to provide flexible supports in recognition
that different people will require different levels of support and for different
periods of time (FaHCSIA 2008:47). The strategy notes that wrap around
support that ensures the coordination of all services required to meet
individual needs is required. This includes linking individuals with employment,
health care and social inclusion services (FaHCSIA 2008:47).
Supports should be flexible enough to accommodate low, medium and high
support needs in order to effectively address underlying issues that individuals
may have (Gordon 2007:2). Housing First models require on site and long72
term assertive outreach support rather than time limited interventions,
especially given that acceptance of support is not a requirement of the
accommodation (Gordon 2007:3).
Under the Pathway’s Housing First model, tenants do not have to accept
treatment but are required to meet with caseworkers twice a month, for 12
months and to participate in a money management program (Johnsen
&Teixeira 2010). After that time they are able to stay on permanently in the
accommodation and will be subject to the same tenancy rules as every other
tenancy agreement (Johnsen and Teixeira 2010:7).
Pathways provide “Assertive Community Treatment” (outreach) to Housing
First tenants through a multidisciplinary team comprised of social workers,
mental and physical health workers, former homeless persons who provide
peer support, and employment officers (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:7). Outreach
support is provided on call 24 hours each day for a limited time according to
the individual tenant’s needs (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010: 7).
The ACT discussion paper The Road Map notes that the coordination of
outreach supports to people accommodated in Housing First properties is a
key component in assisting people with complex needs to achieve
independence (DHCS 2009:16).
The Danish Housing First strategy also recognises the vital role of adequate
support, qualifying the provision of Housing First accommodation by the
following three conditions, that:
i)
Housing First programs must be supported by other initiatives aimed at
meeting the needs of people accommodated;
ii) programs must be goal oriented; and
iii) programs must address the economic conditions of those
accommodated (Hansen 2010:119).
The Danish Housing First strategy further asserts the need for Assertive
Community Treatment (ACT) utilising a group of mobile workers with an
interdisciplinary approach to addressing homelessness, Critical Time
Intervention (CTI) in terms of quickly moving people into long term housing,
and Individual Case Management to ensure responsibility for the coordination
of support needs (Hansen 2010:121).
Common Ground however, provides on-site supports in multi-story apartment
complexes, mixing social inclusion and community building activities, with
case management supports (Jope 2010:16). Social inclusion is an important
component of successful Housing First models with activities located both
within accommodation complexes and externally to encourage community
engagement (Gordon 2007:4). In addition, Housing First models should assist
tenants to access employment through on and off site skills training, and
through employment opportunities such as cafes and cleaning services
(Gordon 2007:4).
73
Social inclusion activities have been vital to the success of the Mental Health
Housing and Support Initiative (HASI) in NSW, with 83% of tenants
participating in social inclusion activities and 43% engaged in employment or
study, compared to just 9% on entry into the program (Fisher et.al. 2007:2-3).
In addition, 93% of tenants had developed friendships as a result of their
engagement in HASI social inclusion activities, compared to 23% who
reported having established friendships on entry into the program (Fisher et.al.
2007:2-3).
The research above indicates that a variety of accommodation and support
models have been adapted to establish Housing First models. The key
considerations when determining the appropriate service model for a particular
context are:
i) The target sub-group that the service aims to attract;
ii) The levels of support required; and
iii) The capacity to ensure the safety and wellbeing of both the target
group and other tenants residing within and around an accommodation
complex.
Establishing a Housing First model in the ACT would therefore require
consideration of the balance between creating a normalising and community
integrated physical space, with the need to ensure adequate security, support
and service provision.
Cost Benefits
While the upfront capital costs of establishing a Housing First model can be
substantive, international evidence shows an overall savings in terms of
reducing the ongoing costs of repeat homelessness (Gordon 2007:2). Many
studies indicate a cost benefit for Housing First programs, as they tend to lead
to a reduction in the use of costly emergency services.
Evidence from the Denver Housing First Collaboration shows that emergency
related costs were reduced by an average of 73% or $15,772.50 per client per
year (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010).Taking into account the costs of operating the
program, this resulted in a net savings of approximately $4,745 per client over
two years (Johnsen& Teixeira 2010:9).
In 2007, the Pathways to Housing Organisation reported that the average cost
per night to accommodate a person under their Housing First model was $57,
noting further that clients contribute to this cost by paying 30% of their income
as rent (Liou, Nutt, Dunham & Sanchez 2011). Compared to the average cost
of accommodating a person in an emergency shelter ($73 per day), hospital
($519 per day), Psychiatric Hospital ($1,185 per day) or jail ($164 per day), the
Pathways to Housing model provides a cost efficient model of service delivery
while increasing client benefits in terms of housing sustainability and
associated wellbeing (Liou, Nutt, Dunham & Sanchez 2011:10).
74
Based on the methodologies of Professor Denis Culhane from Philadelphia,
Chair of the Australian Common Ground Alliance Felicity Reynolds estimated
that it could cost approximately $34,000 per year to support a chronically
homeless person on the streets of Sydney (Reynolds 2007:35). These costs
include medical expenses associated with hospitalisations, legal costs
associated with criminal charges, detoxification services and emergency
accommodation (Reynolds 2007:35-36).
Reynolds further argues that chronically homeless people should be supported
to access mainstream services as soon, and as much as possible, in order to
move out of the homelessness system and into independent living (Reynolds
2007:37).
Jope (2010) concurs that supporting long term housing can reduce costs
related to emergency shelters, hospitalisations, imprisonment, and health
care. In addition, it can lead to economic benefits associated with encouraging
chronically homeless people to participate in the employment market (Jope
2010:16).
The evidence cited above suggests that addressing long term homelessness
through a Housing First approach can not only produce positive outcomes for
homeless people, it can do so at a cost benefit when reduced use of
emergency and related services are taken into account. While this evidence
bodes well for the establishment of a Housing First model in the ACT, further
investigation into the actual costs of homelessness and mainstream
emergency services in the ACT is required in order to conduct an accurate
cost benefit analysis.
Effectiveness
Evaluations of the diverse range of Housing First models established both in
Australia and Overseas, indicate that the underpinning philosophy provides an
effective foundation for supporting chronically homeless people into long-term
and secure housing. Outcomes can be discussed according to the following
considerations:
Housing retention and clinical outcomes
The Road Home indicates that the South Australian Street to Home program
which uses assertive outreach to move chronically homeless people off the
streets and into long-term accommodation, had successfully housed 200
rough sleepers with 95% of tenancies being sustained over time (FaHCSIA
2008:51). The strategy further indicated that 1 in 5 rough sleepers supported
had been homeless for between 5 and 15 years before being housed through
the program (FaHCSIA 2008:51).
Evidence from the review of the Pathways Housing First model indicates that
80% of tenants maintained their housing after 2 years and 75% of tenants
maintained their housing after 4 years, compared to just 50% of tenants
supported in linear based approaches (Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:8). While
there were little differences in improvement of substance misuse or clinical
75
conditions for Housing First and treatment first clients, Housing First clients
showed a lower rate of hospitalisation over a 2-year period (Johnsen &Teixeira
2010:9).
This evidence is consistent with findings from the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), that found that while
Housing First models achieved an 87% housing retention rate compared to
treatment first models which achieved a 46% housing retention rate, clinical
outcomes were indifferent between the two groups despite the fact that
Housing First clients were not required to accept treatment (Liou, Nutt,
Dunham & Sanchez 2011:7).
This indicates that the Housing First approach does not negatively impair the
recovery of individuals with mental illness or substance addictions, despite the
fact that housing is provided without the need to accept treatment for these
conditions.
Normalising accommodation options compared to community
connectivity
A 2007 study by Stefancic and Tsemberis found that housing maintenance
outcomes were 21% higher in the Pathways Housing First model compared to
other housing first models. This was attributed to the Pathways to Housing
Organisation’s use of dispersed properties in order to create normalising
conditions rather than apartment complexes that they conclude can perpetuate
negative behaviours amoung residents with complex needs (Stefancic &
Tsemberis 2007, cited in Johnsen &Teixeira 2010:10).
The ACT National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness Annual Report
2009-2010 also indicates consistent results in housing maintenance outcomes
for tenancies established under the dispersed Housing First model, APTCH.
The report notes that 100% of tenancies had lower than average tenant
responsible maintenance costs and no tenants owed more than $500 in rental
payments at the conclusion of the 2009-10 financial year (DHCS 2010:20).
A 2010 review by Kresky-Wolff et al. also indicated that the dispersal of
Housing First properties promotes self-responsibility and stability, leading to
increased positive outcomes for clients (Kresky-Wolfe et.al. 2010, cited in
Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:11). The review did however, acknowledge that
employees of Housing First models operating from multi-unit complexes had
indicated that social wellbeing was increased through such models as clients
and support workers had more regular and less formal catch ups, leading to
greater levels of trust and community connectivity ((Kresky-Wolfe et.al. 2010,
cited in Johnsen & Teixeira 2010:11).
In consideration of the largely positive outcomes achieved, Johnsen and
Teixeira caution that there remain significant challenges and risks associated
with borrowing policy positions based on innovative programs operated
effectively in other contexts. This is especially true where external influences
such as welfare regimes, homeless demographics and housing supply may
76
lead to policy and practice failure when not adequately considered (Johnsen &
Teixeira 2010:3).
Concluding Remarks
The key objective of Housing First models pertaining to the rights of
chronically homeless individuals and families to access long term, affordable
housing quickly and without preconditions, is evident through out the diversity
of models developed.
Through analysis of existing literature, this paper concludes that a Housing
First model could be adequately adapted to meet the needs of the ACT. In
finalising an effective service model for the ACT context, consideration of the
homelessness population demographics is required to determine which subgroup will be targeted and which relating service model would most effectively
meet their needs.
Resources
•
ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services
(2010) National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness Between the
Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Capital Territory Annual
Report 2009-10, retrieved from:
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/national
_partnership_agreement/Documents/ACT_AnnualReport_2009-10.pdf
•
ACT Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services
(2009) The Road Map- A discussion paper on the way forward for
homelessness and related services, retrieved from:
http://www.dhcs.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/103079/The_R
oad_Home_-_Discussion_Paper.pdf
•
Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) (2007) What is Supportive
Housing? www.csh.org/toolkit2
•
City of Melbourne (2007) Homelessness Research Project Stage2Final Report, retrieved from:
http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/CommunityServices/SocialSupport/D
ocuments/researchproject_homelessness_stage2.pdf
•
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs (2008) The Road Home- a National Approach to Reducing
Homelessness, retrieved from:
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/housing/progserv/homelessness/whitepap
er/Documents/the_road_home.pdf
•
Fisher K. Muir K. Dadich A. Abello D. and Bleasdale M. (2007) Housing
and Accommodation Support Initiative Evaluation, Social Policy
Research Centre, retrieved from:
http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/Report1_07_HASI_Report_III_
Summary.pdf
77
•
Fitzpatrick-Lewis D. Ganann R. Krishnaratne S Ciliska, D (2011)
Effectiveness of interventions to improve health and housing status of
homeless people: A rapid systemic review, retrieved from:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/638
•
Gilmour T. and Wheadon G. (2010) ‘Common Ground: common
approach’ in HousingWORKS, Volume 8, number 3 August 2010.
•
Gordon, R. (2007) What is Housing First and Supportive Housing?
retrieved from: www.chp.org.au/parity/items/2008/04/00315-upload00001.doc
•
Hansen F.K (2010) “The Homelessness Strategy in Denmark” in
European Journal of Homelessness, vol.4 Dec 2010. (Accessed on 18
August 2011), retrieved from:
http://eohw.horus.be/files/freshstart/European%20Journal%20of%20Ho
melessness/Volume%20Four/policy-review-1.pdf
•
Johnsen S and Teixeira L. (2010) Staircases, Elevators and Cycles of
Change- ‘Housing First’ and other housing models for homeless people
with complex support needs, Crisis and the University of York, London,
retrieved from:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/Housing%20Models%20
Report.pdf
•
Jope, S (2010) Supportive Housing- partnership solutions, Home
Ground, Melbourne, retrieved from:
http://www.homeground.org.au/assets/sh-partnerships-solutions-report29-09.pdf
•
Liou A. Nutt C. Dunham A, and Sanchez M. (2011) Approaches to
Homelessness Prevention, The Centre for Public Policy and the Social
Sciences, Vermont, retrieved from:
http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/housingfinalreportprsrgs.pdf
•
O’Hara A. and Day S. (2001) Imstead and Supportive Housing: A
Vision for the Future, Centre for Health Care Strategies Inc
•
Reynolds F. (2007) To Examine Programs that Assist Vulnerable and
Complex Chronically Homeless People, The Winston Churchill
Memorial Trust of Australia, retrieved from:
http://www.churchilltrust.com.au/site_media/fellows/REYNOLDS_Felicit
y_2007.pdf
78
Appendix B: Jurisdictional Comparisons
Detail
Melbourne
Hobart
Sydney
Brisbane
Under construction- expected
completion October 2011
Under constructionanticipated opening mid
2012
Liverpool Street- 51
Campbell Street- 52
-Franklin Street: 38
- Light Square: 52
- Port Augusta: site 1: 20 site 2: 15
(single story scatter site rather than
apartments due to rural location)
104
146
Liverpool Street- 25 bedsits and
26 one bedroom units
Campbell Street- 28 bedsits
and 24 one bedroom units
- Franklin Street: 26 bedsits and 12
one bedroom units
- Light Square: 36 bedsits and 16
one bedroom units
- Port Augusta: 15 bedsits, 15 one
bedroom units and 5 two bedroom
units
88 Bedsits
12 one bedroom units
4 two bedroom units
Two sites under constructionexpected completion Dec 2011
Opened September 2010
Total number
of units
161
Bedroom
composition
65 Bedsits for formally
homeless 66 Bedsits for
low income 30 2 bedroom
units for low income
families
Common
Spaces
- Communal lounge and
terrace
- Roof top garden
- Large conference room
with small kitchen- used
for breakfast club and
planned programs
- Library
- Sewing room
- Computer room
- Light recreation room
Liverpool Street
- Courtyard
- Art and programs room
- Common house for programs
and gatherings
- Shared kitchen/ dining area
- Quiet activities area
- Concierge area
Campbell Street
- Computer room, library and
quiet activities room
- Lockable art room
- Common foyer and concierge
area
Adelaide
Project Status
- Franklin Street opened 2008
- Light Square opened 2011
-Port Augusta under construction
(site 1 to open 2012/ site 2 to open
2013)
Building details
Franklin Street -1 apartment has
been converted into a common
room
- support worker office
Light Square
- Common area- combined lounge,
kitchen, dining and computer room
- 2 courtyards
- multipurpose room- living
skills activities and breakfast
club
- activities room- planned
program space
- computer room
- common living area and
kitchen
- courtyard
- common laundry
- break out area on each floor
33 adaptable studio units,
102 standard studio units
and 11 one bedroom
units
- Foyer and concierge
area, including internet
kiosk, visitors lounge and
mail boxes
- Training room, including
computers and projectors
for development courses
- Art room with adjoining
courtyard
- Communal vegetable
and fruit garden
- Gardens on every
second floor, alternating
with breakout lounges
- Multipurpose recreation
room that can also be
79
rented out to community
groups for functions and
meetings
- Roof top kitchen for
functions and cooking
classes
- Communal tenant
lounge and roof top
garden
- Pool room with pool
table and separate quiet
area
Service
Spaces
Other Spaces
- Counselling room
- Medical treatment room
- Nurses station
- Therapy room (for
massage and
acupuncture)
- Office spaces for Yarra
Housing and
Homeground
- Two Social EnterprisesRecycling and catering
Number of
Car Spaces/
Bicycle
Spaces/
Storage
Spaces
- 0 car parks for residents
- 20 car parks for staff
- Lockable bike area
- No storage
Who
constructed
the building?
Grocon Group
Liverpool Street
- 4 treatment/ support rooms
Campbell Street
- Medical treatment room
- 2 Consultation rooms
- Staff office and breakout room
at Campbell Street
Liverpool Street - Limited
parking available for residents
however paid parking is
available underneath part of the
building complex
- limited storage space is
available in basement
Campbell Street
-Plenty of
parking is available for
residents under the building
- Each resident will have
access to a lockable storage
space
Light Square
- Counselling room
- Dentist room
- Medical treatment room
- Office spaces for Common
Ground SA
- Meeting room for case
conferencing
- 3 interview rooms for case
management
- 2 treatment rooms
- 2 interview rooms
- Group work room
- separate offices for tenancy
management and support
workers
- space for a social enterprise
or gym
- Office spaces for
tenancy managers and
support workers
- Future retail space
- No car spaces at Adelaide sites
- Approximately 17 car spaces will
be available at Port Augusta sites
- Bike storage is available at all
sites
- 7 staff car spaces
-No bike racks at either site
- No storage is available at either
site
- 50 bike racks
- 0 storage spaces
No car spaces or storage
spaces however bike
racks are provided.
Liverpool Street- Fair Bros.
Campbell Street- Voss
Adapted existing construction
Grocon Group
Grocon Group
80
What was the
total
construction
cost
approx. $50 million (need
to confirm)
How many
units were
furnished and
were they all
the same?
Who paid for
furniture/ fit
outs of units?
Who paid for
furniture/ fit
outs of nonresidential
spaces?
What security
measures are
in place?
Liverpool Street- approx. $9.5
million
Campbell Street- approx. $14
million
Unknown
Fit Out and Security
$30 million
Unknown
All units have been fully furnished
52 previously homeless units
will be furnished
MICAH funded to furnish
the previously homeless
units however will aim to
furnish all to prevent
bedbugs etc… being
brought into the building.
MICAH funded by QLD
Dept.of Communities
All units will receive soft
furnishings and white goods to
the value of $1,500 per unit
All 65 of the formally
homeless units.
All previously homeless units
will receive establishment
packs of furnishings, linen,
groceries etc… to the value of
$2,300 per unit
- Grocon donated
$50,000 for furnishing
- Yarra paid for beds, side
tables and dining tables.
It is expected that furnishings
will be funded through a
combination of donations and
Common Ground TAS
Donations were received from
furniture suppliers
- MA Housing responsible for
sourcing furnishings though
Harvey Norman donations
- NSW Health paid to fit out
the treatment rooms.
The tenants
The tenants
Not applicable
The tenants
MICAH or donations
- CCTV through out
- Swipe card access to
building, floors and units,
including photo ID for
verification by 24 hour
concierge.
- 24 hour concierge.
- 24 hour concierge
(security officer role)
- CCTV and security
lighting throughout
- Swipe card access to
building
- Visitor register requiring
photo ID to track who is
allowed in the building
- CCTV throughout
building
- duress alarms in
program spaces and
laundry
-secure
swipe access to buliding,
floors and units
-24 hour concierge
-after hours security.
- CCTV throughout common
and program areas - swipe
card access to rooms - 24 hour
concierge at entries (note: there
are two separate entries at
Liverpool street given that the
complex is made up of two
building sites).
- Fob swipe access to buildings and
floors
- CCTV through out
- Security patrol walk through 3 x
per night
- Some tenants have security
responsibilities (eg. fire wardens)
- All tenants given security numbers
The service is considering the
to call in emergency
need to have security guards
- Roster system for on call night
during the initial months.
support staff
Tenant Mix- Target Group
81
How are
potential
tenants
identified and
accepted into
the
accommodati
on?
- Homeless: Initially
reviewed by an
assessment panel.
Ongoing allocation
through Open Pathway
referral system.
- Low Income: Through
Yarra Housing
Application
Who are the
target
groups?
- Homeless: Singles
selected according to
highest need and usually
with a combination of
mental health, drug and
alcohol, physical and or
intellectual disability.
- Low income: 3 floors
dedicated to families (30
units, separated from
main facility)
The rest are singles.
- All low income
according to the Yarra
eligibility criteria.
What is the
ratio of
previously
homeless/
- 50:50 split of bedsits
- 100% of family units are
for low income
Common Ground Tasmania will
be conducting a vulnerability
index street survey in
November 2011 to identify the
most vulnerable chronically
homeless individuals.
Individuals will then be
assessed against suitability for
Common Ground to ensure
they are ready for this type of
tenancy.
- Homeless: self and agency
referrals, primarily through Street to
Home and Catherine House but
other homelessness services also
refer.
- Low income: Vacancies are
advertised. There is also a social
housing register for community
housing in South Australia.
- Homeless: Referred by
homelessness services
based on highest vulnerability
- Low income: Advertised
vacancies and registration on
the social housing waiting list.
Homeless- Singles only.
Low income- students, key
workers and other low income
groups.
50:50 noting not all chronically
homeless will be high needs
and that a mix of needs will be
important to the success of the
Aims for a 50/50 split of males to
females (not often achievable due
to greater number of male referrals)
- Low income: All singles or couples
Mixed low income and those at risk
of homelessness such as students,
apprentices etc…
50:50 however a large proportion of
low income are considered at risk of
homelessness, increasing the
overall support needs of the
There will be no
affordable housing- only
social housing.
- Homeless: Singles and
limited couples. Expect a
high number of drug
users due to population
demographics.
Will aim for a 50% split of
males and females.
-Homeless: singles or couples,
10% high needs
40% mixed needs homeless with
careful consideration of existing
tenant mix.
Identified as highly vulnerable
and assessed as suitable for a
Common Ground tenancy.
- Homeless: MICAH will
identify persons who
have been supported by
Street to Home and are
accommodated in scatter
house options but are
having difficulty
sustaining with only
outreach support.
Tenants will be assessed
according to both
vulnerability and
appropriate matching with
other tenants.
- Low income: All low
income tenants will be
assessed as eligible by
the QLD Housing
Authority.
Singles and limited couples
50:50 split comprised of: 52
chronically homeless
10 social housing low needs
42 affordable housing
- Low income: Eligible low
needs social housing
applicants with a
concerted effort to target
key workers on low
incomes
50:50 split
82
low income
Are the
tenancies
mixed within
the complex
or are set
areas
allocated to
previously
homeless
people/ low
income
people?
Mixed. Except for family
units.
program.
program.
They will be mixed across both
sites. Given the nature of
Liverpool street, careful
allocation of tenants for the site
detached from services will
have to be considered.
Mixed. Light Square has one floor
designated for females only but it is
still mixed between low income and
previously homeless.
Mixed
Mixed
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
3 x senior case
coordinators- these staff
will provide some case
management however
will focus on linking
previously homeless
tenants with mainstream
and specialist supports
rather than providing
them on site.
1x level 2 concierge
support role
Service Model
How many
FTE staff are
engaged as
support
workers?
Is there a 24
hour
concierge or
security
presence?
What other
services are
provided on
site? Who
provides
them? And
are they free
to previously
1 Manager,
5 Coordinators
6 Case Workers,
2 Concierge at all times
1 Admin
1 Recreation Officer
Total 14 FTE
Yes. 2x 24 hour
concierge 7 days a week.
Security was needed
initially but this has since
been reduced to 6pm1am and will be further
reduced with the intention
of fading out.
- acupuncture and
massage: funded by
HomeGround
- nurse, GP, psychiatrist
and psychologist: bulk bill
though medicare
- D&A counsellor, home
based detox worker,
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
24 hour concierge will be
available at both sites. Security
is also being considered.
The model will focus on case
coordination utilising existing
mainstream and specialist
services.
Medical treatment rooms are
available for specialist services
that aren’t readily available with
F and L- aim for 1 x support worker
for every 15 previously homeless
however the ratio is increased as
one worker provides program
coordination instead of case
management (usually around 19:1).
.5 x executive manager (oversees
support and tenancy to make 1
FTE)
No concierge
On call night support
Security patrol
Support workers act as lead worker
to coordinate mainstream and
specialist services according to
individual needs. External service
providers are required to sign and
commit to the case plan from the
start to ensure collective action.
24 hour concierge and after
hours security
1 x GP
2 x Psychiatrists (1 mental
health and 1 brain injury)
1 mental health nurse
1 psychologist
(all medicare providers
operating as outreach on site)
MICAH will outsource the
concierge role to a
security agency to
provide a 24 hour
presence
All eligible tenants will
have access to home and
community care and a
nurse will be available to
provide intermittent
support to tenants in
crisis. A partnership
agreement with the Marta
83
homeless
tenants?
dietician, work and
learning advisor, and
pediatrist: funded by
other programs eg. VIC
Health
- CAE programs as
outlined under social
inclusion
the community, such as dental
services.
Case management support
will be provided by support
service
Hospital is currently being
developed to provide the
nurse position.
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
It is intended that the dental clinic
(operated on a pro bono basis and
utilising students from the dentistry
school) as well as any other
medical treatment services provided
on site will be accessible free of
charge to all tenants of Common
Ground SA and the broader
homelessness sector.
Not sure at this stage. It will
depend on service demand.
All tenants will be able to
access on site supports
on an intermittent basis
however only previously
homeless tenants will
receive case
coordination.
This can not be determined at
this stage.
100%. All previously homeless
tenants must actively engage in
case management to continue
residing at Common Ground.
This can not be determined at
this stage.
This can not be
determined at this stage.
This can not be determined at
this stage.
The program officer tailors activities
to the needs identified through case
management. Eg. Art classes,
cooking classes etc…
This can not be determined at
this stage.
This can not be
determined at this stage.
It is anticipated that the support
service will engage pro-bono
specialists to provide these
services on site when needed.
The Uni of SA dental school will
soon be providing dentistry at Light
Square free of charge to all
residents and the broader
homelessness sector.
They are trying to get a mental
health nurse or psychiatrist to work
from Light Square as well.
(no fees are charged to
tenants)
Can other
tenants
and/or the
public also
access onsite support
services? If
so is there a
cost
charged?
What
percentage of
formally
homeless
tenants
currently
access onsite
supports?
What social
inclusion
activities are
offered? And
how many
formally
homeless
tenants
participate?
No services but CAE
programs are accessible
free of charge to all
tenants in the building.
- Approx. 92% had
accesses 1 or more
services
- Approx. 80% of formally
homeless had accessed
CEA programs
Centre for Adult
Education (CAE) offer the
following programs on
site:
- Art/sewing
- Cooking
- Literacy and numeracy
(most popular)
- Gardening
- Multimedia projects
84
Is there any
social
enterprise or
training
component
offered? If so,
how many
previously
homeless
tenants
participate?
How much
funding is
available for
support
services?
Yes- There is a recycling
social enterprise on site
which currently supports
5 participants from
Homeground and a
catering social enterprise
on site which currently
supports around 6
Homeground participants.
The social enterprises
pay rent to Yarra and
operate independently
from the Common
Ground program.
$1.7 million per year for
core support servicescase management,
concierge, on-site
management, and
administration
Philanthropic
contributions fund the
program coordinator role
and the on-site nurse
position.
Specialist health services
primarily funded through
medicare
How many
FTE staff are
engaged in
tenancy
management
?
What length
of tenure is
offered? And
is there a
review
period?
3 including 1
maintenance worker
Permanent subject to
normal tenancy rules.
(2/3rds of original
residents have sustained
their tenancies over the
first year.
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
Not currently however there is a
space at Light Square which is
being considered as a Social
Enterprise. The program officer is
also responsible for linking tenants
with employment opportunities by
developing partnerships with
external organisations. Some
tenants are employed by Common
Ground to provide casual cleaning
and handyman work on site.
Planned to be developed
overtime
This can not be
determined at this stage.
Support funding of approx.
$2.1 million over two years is
available. After that time it is
expected that MA Housing
will fund on site supports
through the rental income and
potential social enterprise
earnings of the property.
$1.2 million per year
($270,000 will be used to
outsource
security/concierge role)
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
1 x tenancy manager
.5 x executive manager (oversees
support and tenancy to make 1
FTE)
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
Permanent as long as normal
tenancy requirements are
fulfilled
Initial 3 month probation lease
followed by a long term, continuous
periodical lease which requires
Common Ground to provide 3
months notice to terminate.
Permanent Housing
Permanent Housing
Common Ground Tasmania will
receive per head funding for
each previously homeless
person accommodated.
The service will also receive
ongoing financial support
through donations, fundraisers,
rental income and the operation
of a commercial car park at the
$500,000 (for Franklin and Light
Liverpool Street site.
Square)
Tenancy Management
85
Is rent
payable
based on %
of market
rent or % of
client
income? And
what
percentage is
used?
Do you
accept
couples and
families or
just singles?
Who pays the
rent on nonresidential
space and
how is it
calculated?
30% of income. Electricity
and water are included in
the rent charged.
Just singles except for
segregated in family units
Social Enterprises pay
rent to Yarra.
Homeground does not
pay rent for service space
as this was negotiated by
Victorian Government at
construction stage.
How will
tenancy
management
be funded?
Through the collection of
rental income
The model has not been
finalised at this stage
30% of income for previously
homeless tenants and some at risk
low income tenants.
75% of market rent for affordable
tenancies (plus Common Ground
gets National Rental Affordability
Scheme payments)
No more than 30% of income
for previously homeless and
social housing tenants
75% of full market rent for
affordable housing.
All tenants will be
charged 30% of income
Singles only
Singles and couples only however
children are allowed to stay for up
to 3 nights per week where care
arrangements are in place.
Singles or couples. No
children.
Singles and some
couples but no
families/children
Common ground SA owns and
occupies the entire building.
This can not be determined at
this stage.
Common Ground SA retains all
rents and NRAS payments to cover
tenancy management expenses.
MA Housing retains the rent
to fund the tenancy
management
No rent will be payable on nonresidential space
Funding sources noted in
support funding will also be
used to finance tenancy
management
MICAH will pay rent on
the non residential space
to the tenancy manager
Still in negotiation. The
tenancy manager will
retain rents and may also
receive top up funding
due to the high needs
nature of the tenancy
program.
86
Appendix C: Common Ground Consultations
•
Australian Common Ground Alliance Chair Felicity Reynolds 26 September 2011
•
Home Ground Programs Coordinator Camille Heagney (Common Ground
Melbourne) 26 September 2011
•
Common Ground TAS architect Paul Johnston 27 September 2011
•
Common Ground SA CEO Maria Palumbo 28 September 2011
•
Director of Housing Ms Viviann Hannich (Common Ground NSW) 29 September
2011
•
MICAH CEO Karyn Walsh (Common Ground Brisbane) 5 October 2011
•
QLD Director, Department of Communities Kerry Batchler 6 October 2011
•
Common Ground TAS CEO Liz Thompson 7 October 2011
•
Home Ground CEO Stephen Nash 12 October 2011
•
Common Ground Canberra Group11 October 2011
•
ACT Homelessness Forum 13 October 2011
•
Housing and Community Services Executive Meeting October 2011
•
CIT Strategic Assets Property Manager Doug Brooks 19 October 2011
•
Joint Pathways Housing First Presentation and Discussion 25 October 2011
•
Havelock Housing Association CEO and Operations Manager Loc Luu and Terri
Stiller 26 October 2011
•
Who’s new on the streets committee 27 October 2011
•
YWCA of Canberra. 7 November 2011
•
Street to Home team. 14 November 2011
•
Inanna 14 November 2011
•
Canberra Men Centre. 14 November 2011
•
Social Ventures Australia- ACT Social Enterprise Hub. 22 November 2011
•
Northside Community Services. 23 November 2011
87
Appendix D: Additional Resources
•
Dawson, L. (2011) Data Collection of Homeless Women A Canberra Housing
Proposal
•
AIHW (2010) ‘Health Expenditure Australia 2008-09’ in Health and Welfare
Expenditure Series no 42, Cat. No. HWE51. Canberra. AIHW.
•
Johnson, G. Parkinson, S. Tseng, Y. and Kuehnle, D. (2011) Long-Term
Homelessness: Understanding the Challenge. Sacred Heart Mission, St Kilda.
•
Housing NSW (2009) The Camperdown Project, Housing NSW
•
Johnston, P (2008) A.V. Jennings Churchhill Fellowship: to study
contemporary design developments in social housing, The Winston Churchill
Memorial Trust of Australia.
•
ACGA (2011) Guidelines and Expression of Interest, Australian Common
Ground Alliance.
•
Common Ground SA. Imagine the Possibilities.
•
Common Ground TAS. Building the Foundations.
•
Brisbane Common Ground. Look Book.
•
AIHW (2011) Street to Home SAAP Data 2010-11. AIHW.
•
AIHW (2011) Australian Capital Territory SAAP Data 2010-11. AIHW.
•
First Point (2011) Six Monthly Performance Report Jan-June 2011.
•
Common Ground Canberra (2010) Business Plan.
•
Community Services Directorate Human Rights Policy
•
ACT Government Human Rights Act 2004
•
Residential Tenancy Act 1997
•
ACT Government Human Rights Act 2004
•
ACT Government Housing Assistance Public Rental Housing Assistance
Program 2008,
•
AIHW (2011) Government-funded specialist homelessness services-SAAP
National Data Collection annual report 2010-11, Australian Capital Territory
88