boxes in the jungle - department for child protection · 2013. 6. 10. · boxes in the jungle ......
TRANSCRIPT
0
Boxes in the Jungle I live in a box down in the jungle – what can you do?
– homeless young person
A review of inner city homeless
services in Perth and Fremantle
Leah Watkins
Starfish Consulting
November 2012
1
2
Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Executive summary...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Chapter 2: Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3: Levels of homelessness ......................................................................................................................... 22
Homeless service users .......................................................................................................................................... 22
Rough sleepers ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
Demand for services ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Chapter 4: Current services ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Accommodation services .................................................................................................................................... 26
Non-residential services ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Chapter 5: New services and proposals ................................................................................................................ 31
Proposals in earlier stages of development ...................................................................................................... 32
Chapter 6: Models to consider ................................................................................................................................ 35
DHS Centrelink – community engagement ...................................................................................................... 35
Outcomes Star ....................................................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 7: Target groups ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Homeless women .................................................................................................................................................. 38
People with complex needs ................................................................................................................................ 41
Homeless families ................................................................................................................................................... 44
Homeless young people ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Homeless couples .................................................................................................................................................. 48
Chapter 8: Significant issues..................................................................................................................................... 50
Accommodation ................................................................................................................................................... 50
Basic needs ............................................................................................................................................................. 54
Health....................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Service restrictions and bans ............................................................................................................................... 57
Employment, education and training ............................................................................................................... 59
3
Exiting homeless services ...................................................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 9: Service integration ................................................................................................................................ 63
Coordination mechanisms ................................................................................................................................... 63
Referral pathways .................................................................................................................................................. 65
Information provision ............................................................................................................................................. 67
Working with individual clients ............................................................................................................................ 68
Mainstream services .............................................................................................................................................. 70
Local government ................................................................................................................................................. 71
Chapter 10: People in parks .................................................................................................................................... 73
Numbers of people in parks ................................................................................................................................. 73
Usage of parks and services ................................................................................................................................ 77
Barriers to accessing services .............................................................................................................................. 78
Strategies to address needs ................................................................................................................................ 80
Appendix 1: Services surveyed ................................................................................................................................ 84
Appendix 2: AIHW inner city service data ............................................................................................................. 86
Appendix 3: Bedspaces in accommodation services ........................................................................................ 88
Appendix 4: Support in accommodation services .............................................................................................. 90
Appendix 5: Basic needs available in non-residential services ......................................................................... 93
Appendix 6: Support in non-residential services .................................................................................................. 96
Appendix 7: Daily vacancies ................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix 8: Outcomes Star service types and ladder of change ................................................................ 102
Appendix 9: Nyoongar Patrol data ...................................................................................................................... 104
4
Acknowledgements
If you’ve got money to get pissed you can have a bed, but if you’re dead broke
and sober there’s nothing
– homeless man
This review was commissioned by the Department for Child Protection (DCP) and overseen by a
steering committee established by DCP made up of:
Barry Winmar – DCP Principal Consultant, Aboriginal Engagement and Coordination
Brenda Gabriel – DCP Non-Government Funding - Homelessness
Chantal Roberts – Shelter WA
Helen Miskell – DCP Non-Government Funding - Homelessness
Ross Kyrwood – WA Council on Homelessness
Rossana Trinchi – DCP Perth District Office
Tom Pavlos – City of Perth
The review received additional support from a reference group of volunteers from the sector:
Alison Lawrie – Fremantle Multicultural Resource Centre
Linda Crumlin – Australian Red Cross
Peta Nordberg – Mission Australia
Philippa Boldy – Anglicare
Victor Crevatin – St Patrick’s Community Centre
Yolanda Strauss – Women’s Health and Family Services
The researcher would also like to thank the following agencies who gave access to their services and
staff to assist with outreach and clients interviews:
St Patrick’s Community Centre
Ruah’s Anawim Aboriginal Women’s Service
UnitingCare West (UCW) – Tranby Day Centre
Ruah Centre
Passages Resource Centre
Anglicare – Street Connect
Particular thanks also go to the 153 homeless people in various centres and parks in Perth and
Fremantle who shared their stories and experiences.
5
Executive summary
I’ve had no food for two weeks. I have somewhere to live but my son was living with me and
making the neighbours complain. He has to move out, so he borrowed money from me and
now I have to come here for food.
– woman in day centre
This report was commissioned to review inner city homeless services in Perth and Fremantle. Its purpose
is to:
conduct a stocktake of available services
identify current demands for the various homeless service types
identify current factors affecting the service system
In light of this, the review is tasked with making recommendations regarding the mix of services required
to better address current demand and to improve integration of the homeless service system.
In the same way that inner cities are the focal point of city life and business, they often develop a
concentration of homeless services. Homeless people are mobile and have often lost ties to places
they used to live and work. They gravitate to the inner city to find services – both because that is where
services are located and because public transport makes it easier to access them. This is reflected with
inner city Perth and Fremantle servicing 32% of Western Australia’s homeless people.1 Reviewing inner
city homeless services therefore inevitably results in discussions of homelessness and service provision in
general. This report was commissioned to conduct a stocktake of available services in inner city Perth
and Fremantle, identify key factors affecting the service system and identify current demands for
various homeless service types. While this report has attempted to stay within its geographical brief it
does this in the context of the homeless sector.
Much of the material for the report comes from consultation with the sector. Service providers were
invited to participate through focus groups, online surveys, strategic interviews and ad hoc meetings.
Informal interviews enabled homeless people and service users to contribute their knowledge and
experiences. There were 98 interviews undertaken with clients in day centres and hostels, and a further
55 people interviewed in parks in Perth and Fremantle. Other quantitative information was drawn in
from data collection systems and service providers.
The research found 1,151 bed spaces in 31 services in inner city Perth and Fremantle. These vary
enormously and include unfunded night shelters, lodging house complexes, supported
accommodation hostels, women’s refuges and specialist accommodation services. Despite the
seemingly high number of spaces, with 3,666 people accessing inner city homeless services over the
1 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11 compared to AIHW (2011) “Government-Funded Specialist Homeless
Services – SAAP National Data Collection Annual Report 2010-11: Western Australia”, Australian Institute of Health
6
year,2 demand is often higher than supply. In addition to accommodation services, the research
identified 34 non-residential support services working with homeless people of which 27 provided
information for the review. These include soup runs, day centres, outreach services, youth services and
specialist services. The sector, however, is not static and additional services that are in development
are also worth considering. This includes the redevelopment and expansion of existing projects (St
Bartholomew’s Lime St, Salvation Army’s Beacon Project and UnitingCare West’s (UCW) Wilf Sargent
House), and the provision of new services (Anglicare’s Foyer Project and Vincentcare’s Tom Fisher
House). In light of this mapping, provision of inner city Perth and Fremantle homeless services is analysed
in terms of target groups, significant issues and service integration.
There is a tendency for homeless services in inner city Perth and Fremantle to be a bit “one-size-fits-all”.
Provision is focused around single homeless men and women escaping domestic and family violence.3
While homeless men make up over half the population in the inner city,4 Lime St and the Beacon
Project represent significant improvements and an expansion of provision for them. In Chapter 7, the
review identifies five other key target groups that need to be considered:
Homeless women: Provision for homeless women is either through women’s refuges that
prioritise women escaping domestic and family violence or a limited number of low/no support
services. This means women who are homeless do not have access to a supported
accommodation service that will assist them to find a pathway out of homelessness.
People with complex needs: A significant proportion of homeless people in inner city Perth and
Fremantle have complex needs5 yet their access to services is often restricted on the basis of
numbers, access to external support or on a case by case basis.6 Access to specialist mental
health services assist homeless agencies to work with and provide support in this area, though
additional provision is required.
Homeless families: Survey respondents identify homeless families as having the most limited
options for accommodation.7 There are no unrestricted crisis bed spaces for families. 8 While
DCP may assist some families on a very short-term basis, it is primarily a child protection service
and the hotels it uses for overnight accommodation are increasingly full or refusing to take their
clients.9 Refuge provision also offers some provision, but is often limited to those experiencing
domestic violence and cannot assist when children are with both of their parents or their father.
In response to this, services are developing models for a crisis accommodation service for
families and a homeless family day centre.
2 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11 3 Note there is a recent sector scoping study of the women’s domestic and family violence services in WA that deals
with issues in this area. 4 They are 57.5% of clients, though this includes young men who are generally included in youth provision – see
AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11 5 35% of those surveyed for Registry Week were tri-morbid (mental health, substance use and medical problems),
UCW’s Tranby service estimates 30-40% of its clients have complex needs 6 See Table 6 in Chapter 7 7 See Table 5 in Chapter 7 8 The only crisis provision for families is either in women’s refuges for people escaping domestic and family violence
or 13 in the Perth Asian Community Centre which is a CaLD specific service. 9 As reported by DCP intake and assessment teams in Perth and Fremantle
7
Homeless young people: Youth homelessness is more difficult to assess in the context of the
inner city as most accommodation services are in suburban areas. The inner city youth
homeless services have also experienced significant changes recently. Anglicare is developing
its Foyer Project, Mission Australia has expanded its Inner City Project and Street Connect is
coming to the end of its funding. It was identified, however, that in Fremantle there is no day
centre provision for young people, therefore restricting their access to showers, meals and
other basic needs. Issues related to the care system are also highlighted, with the inner city
becoming a focal point for young people who are avoiding services and becoming homeless.
Couples: There are very limited accommodation options for homeless couples. Homeless
people who are in relationships say they move between regular periods of rough sleeping and
respite in separate accommodation services. This experience is particularly common amongst
people in parks.
Throughout the review a number of key themes recurred, indicating significant issues for inner city
service provision for homeless people in Perth and Fremantle. Chapter 8 details the six key areas that
warrant consideration:
Accommodation: Whilst provision of long-term affordable housing is beyond the scope of this
review, the lack of exit points distorts the capacity of services to deliver good outcomes for
clients. Accommodation services in general are in short supply, with services calling for both
“messier” style first-step services that don’t require engagement as a condition of housing, and
more proactive models like Housing First. Once housed, there is also a need for adequate
follow-up support to ensure people do not return to homelessness.
Basic needs: While some basic needs provision is adequate there is a lack of storage and
laundry facilities. There is sufficient food provision, though nutrition and variety can be an issue
when homeless people rely on the same service as their only food source for extended periods.
Suggestions were also made about the need for extended day centre hours, particularly in
Perth.
Health: As homeless people can have complex health needs10 and tend to use expensive
acute health care services, provision of community based services like the Street Doctor and
Mobile GP are cost effective. These are highly valued services and use homeless services to
draw in non-compliant clients who will only see a doctor in this familiar environment. Additional
doctors are required to support these services.
Service restrictions and bans: The research found that access to services is restricted on the
basis of complex needs, client history, staff shortages, disability access, income and lack of
engagement in programs. In addition 64% of services will ban individuals, with the length and
reasons for such bans varying enormously between services. From a client perspective, over
20% report that they avoid accommodation services because of the rules and restrictions.
10 See Registry Week data which found 59% of those surveyed had high mortality risks from health issues that are
exacerbated by their homelessness
8
Employment, education and training: A third of the 98 homeless people interviewed in services
saw some form of work, training or occupation as an important route out of homeless support
services and poverty. While half of the homeless services in inner city Perth and Fremantle
report offering support in this area, observations of services, comments by staff and feedback
from clients suggest that, for many, this is on an infrequent and ad hoc basis. Clients report that
both homeless and employment services offer less assistance to homeless clients because it is
assumed they are not interested or ready. These low expectations act to maintain poverty and
limit sustainable pathways out of homelessness.
Exiting homeless services: The homeless sector has a tendency to focus on exits from
homelessness to affordable housing. There is less work in the area of exiting people from
homeless services and homeless culture. Clients interviewed and the State Homeless Plan both
identify the need for a connection with community, family and friends to help people build
resilience and a support network that will prevent the continuing cycle of homelessness.11
The other key task of the review is to identify opportunities for better service integration. Such
opportunities enable inner city homeless services to collaborate and build smoother pathways out of
homelessness. As detailed in Chapter 9, the key areas identified are:
Coordination mechanisms: There are several interagency groups that bring together homeless
and related services in inner city Perth and Fremantle. The regional homeless plan process in
Fremantle has brought together both non-government and government agencies to
collaborate on key priorities. The process in inner city Perth has been less successful, with the
regional plan developed out of work undertaken by the People in Parks Working Group and
not widely known by key stakeholders.
Referral pathways: There is a desire among inner city homeless services to simplify referral
pathways. There is a distinct referral loop reported between Crisis Care, Department of
Housing’s (DoH) Homeless Advisory Service, DCP district offices and organisations like Shelter.
DCP is currently working on a model for an intake and assessment centre. This needs to be
developed alongside other strategies like common assessment tools, information provision and
training across the sector to ensure the service system is able to provide a “no wrong door”.12
Information provision: Provision of a directory of services was identified as a priority both in the
Regional Homeless Plan for central Perth and in the focus groups for this review. DCP has
recently launched an online directory and additional work to extend its coverage and
functionality will help it meet the information needs of the sector. City of Perth also produces a
brochure detailing homeless services in the inner city. Additional information resources
recommended by inner city homeless services include pathway diagrams, wider access to bed
count data, client information and collaboration tools.
11 “Opening Doors to Address Homelessness” (2010), Western Australia Homelessness State Plan 2010-2013, WA
Government, Department for Child Protection 12 As recommended in Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008) “The
Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness”, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra
9
Working with individual clients: Service integration can also be taken down to the level of work
with individual clients. This includes joint case-work, local mechanisms for coordinating shared
cases and using information systems to share client referral and assessment records. Examples
of this include the Infoxchange system used by Street to Home, Peel’s extranet system and the
new St Bartholomew’s A Good Life project which will be using techniques to share information
about clients between agencies.
Mainstream services: As made clear in the State Homelessness Plan,13 homelessness is not just
the responsibility of specialist homeless services. Mainstream and other services also play a
critical role in addressing homelessness. As the department funding many specialist homeless
services, DCP has a role in liaising with other mainstream agencies to promote collaboration
and service integration opportunities. The work of the Department of Human Services (DHS)
Centrelink’s community engagement officers is documented in this review as a highly valued
model which delivers mainstream services to marginalised homeless people in their own
environment and increases their participation in essential services. The review identifies that this
model could be effectively used by other mainstream services – in particular by DoH to ensure
homeless people access long-term housing options, by DCP for working with young people
absconding from care placements, and by either a Jobs Services Australia organisation (JSA)
or specialist homeless employment agency.
Local government: While not usually direct service providers, local governments are key
stakeholders through their responsibilities for community development, planning legislation and
management of public places. Local governments also have a role in facilitating and
advocating for new initiatives. Recent examples of this include City of Fremantle’s feasibility
study for a nightshelter/sobering-up facility, and City of Perth and City of Vincent’s support of
Registry Week.
Within this review, a section of the research was ring-fenced to consider the needs of people in parks. In
keeping with this, Chapter 10 deals exclusively with this group. Interviews in parks and data from other
services found that:
A significant proportion of people in parks are Aboriginal.
In Fremantle there is a tendency for people in parks to be local or to have a connection to the
region. In Perth, there is a mix between local Aboriginal people and those from remote and
regional areas.
While a significant proportion of people in parks are rough sleeping, there are also those who
have their own place or are staying with family/friends. There is, however, a level of
homelessness hidden within this group as not all these arrangements are safe and secure
because of violence, overcrowding, and the threat of eviction.
The vast majority of people in parks talk about using public spaces to meet friends and family. Some
are avoiding conflict and overcrowding where they are staying, or as rough sleepers do not have other
13 “Opening Doors to Address Homelessness” (2010), Western Australia Homelessness State Plan 2010-2013, WA
Government, Department for Child Protection
10
places to go. Whilst some do use services, there is a tendency to go primarily for basic needs. People
from regional and remote areas were less likely to access services. Barriers to accessing services revolve
around two key themes. Services are either not suitable because of mixed age groups, couples,
cultural appropriateness, design and expectations issues;14 or due to people being banned or unable
to comply with service rules. Engagement style outreach and alternative accommodation models are
identified as responses that may be able to better meet the needs of this group. Other
recommendations arising from earlier sections in the report will also meet the needs identified by
people in parks.
Recommendations
The recommendations in this report suggest a range of options and possible developments. This
provides choice and a comprehensive range of suggestions to be taken forward. Throughout the
report recommendations are located next to the material presented on the issue they address.
Recommendations are also listed in the table below as a reference.
14 See Appendix 8 for details of service types and expected outcomes using the Outcomes Star model
11
Recommendations Involving Region
Target groups: women
1. That DCP investigate options for increasing accommodation for homeless women. This additional provision should not
be part of domestic and family violence services, but have a homeless specific focus and provide additional support
services. Options to consider include:
Supporting Wilf Sargent House with its redevelopment proposal and options to move to a mixed target group
Identifying any other services that may consider changing their target group
Funding a new homeless women’s service – this could be used to increase the capacity in both the homeless
and domestic violence sectors as it would inevitably house some women whose homelessness included
experiences of violence, and enable refuges to focus on domestic and family violence.
DCP
Wilf Sargent
(UCW)
Other agencies
Both
2. That DCP investigate the possibilities suggested for changing or expanding 55 Central’s target group, including
becoming a mixed service or specialising in homeless people with mental health problems. Alternative services should
also be considered that could offer specialist or mixed accommodation for homeless people.
DCP
55 Central
Perth
Target groups: people with complex needs
3. That DCP support the Mental Health Linkages project, including following up with this group about ways such specialist
support can be provided to assist hostels to reduce barriers for people with mental health needs.
DCP Both
4. That DCP support the development of a training program be developed and delivered for homeless sector staff
about the individualised funding and assessment processes available in the mental health and disability sectors.
DCP Both
12
Targe groups: homeless families
5. That DCP monitor and support the development of the Fremantle family emergency accommodation model being
worked on by the local interagency group.
DCP
Fremantle
interagency
group
Fremantle
6. That within DCP’s proposal for a homeless referral and assessment centre there is consideration of co-locating it with a
day centre for homeless families.
DCP Both
7. That DCP approach DoH and request that a house be allocated to each district office for use as emergency family
accommodation, or that such a resource be attached to the homeless referral service proposal that is being
developed.
DCP
DoH
Both
Target groups: young people
8. That DCP liaise with service providers, City of Fremantle and other interested parties to attempt to fill the gap for basic
needs provision for young people in Fremantle eg showers, meals – preferably in a drop-in environment.
DCP
City of
Fremantle
Fremantle
9. That DCP consider allocating a social worker(s) to specialise in working with older young people who abscond from
care and move between care and homelessness. In particular this social worker should liaise and work in partnership
with inner city youth services.
DCP Both
Significant issues: accommodation
10. That partnerships be developed for the provision of a winter shelter style service with private sector support. As appropriate Both
11. That DCP explore options with DoH and other relevant departments for adopting Housing First approaches to address
the needs of chronic and long-term homeless people.
DCP
DoH
Both
13
Significant issues: basic needs
12. That options for providing storage facilities for homeless people be explored with the Order of St John (OSJ). Order of St John Both
13. That Australian Red Cross be supported to run a trial of FoodCents in the park. Australian Red
Cross
Both
14. That DCP support an appropriate agency to review the nutrition options available to homeless people. This could be
done in partnership with students from a relevant university.
DCP Both
15. That DCP, in collaboration with City of Perth and City of Fremantle, establish a role to assist organisations and charity
groups providing food for homeless people to do so in a coordinated manner.
DCP
City of Perth
City of
Fremantle
Both
Significant issues: health
16. That DCP continue to support specialist homeless health services like the Mobile GP and Street Doctor, including
supporting any moves to increase the capacity of these services.
DCP Both
Significant issues: service restrictions and bans
17. That an action research project15 be undertaken to work with hostels to investigate the extent to which their rules
unnecessarily exclude or discourage clients.
DCP Both
15 Action research has been recommended as this model will enable hostel staff to be directly involved in research and will value their experience and knowledge.
14
Significant issues: employment, education and training
18. That collaboration with other government departments and agencies in the sector be sought to establish a specialist
homeless employment service that would be able to offer a visiting support service within homeless agencies. This
could be done through either:
Tasking a single JSA in the metropolitan area with this role
Establishing a specialist team along similar lines as DHS Centrelink’s community engagement team
Seeking employment and training sector funding to establish a specialist service
DCP
Other
government
departments
Both
19. That Salvation Army’s BP House model be documented with the view to providing a best practice example that could
be duplicated.
Salvation Army Both
Significant issues: exiting homeless services
20. That DCP support a project to signpost community activities and groups that can connect homeless people back to
family, friends and community, particularly on an individual basis.
DCP Both
Service integration: coordination mechanisms
21. That DCP take the opportunity to improve collaboration and draw inner city Perth services into the process of
implementing the regional plan for their area by forming a regional interagency group for this purpose rather than
using the People in Parks Working Group.
DCP Perth
22. That DCP follow the outcomes of DoH’s review into the role of housing peaks and consider what further role these or
other groups may have as a homeless sector peak body.
DCP
DoH
Both
15
Service integration: referral pathways
23. That DoH and DCP collaborate to close referral loops for homeless people between their helpline services to ensure
information is provided at the first point of call and not referred on. This could include day releases of staff between
Crisis Care and the Homeless Advisory Service. DoH may also be interested in supporting the development for DCP’s
assessment centre proposal to enable it to deal with homeless related queries that would otherwise be sent to the
Homeless Advisory Service.
DCP
DoH
Both
24. That DCP’s assessment centre proposal be developed alongside other strategies including:
Work with interagency forums to develop further common assessment tools and practices
Training and “show and tell” style events that improve knowledge of referral pathways across the sector.
DCP Both
Service integration: information provision
25. That DCP expand its directory project to:
include non-DCP funded services that regularly work with homeless people
further develop the search and category functionality
incorporate a “what if” style matrix to assist those less familiar with the sector to navigate to appropriate
services
produce a version suitable for clients – possible in collaboration with the City of Perth’s brochure
make provisions for regular cycles to update information
develop an app version of the directory to make it more accessible (particularly for mobile workers)
DCP
City of Perth
Both
26. That the vacancy bedcount be made more widely available to homeless sector agencies.16 DCP Both
16 But not to the public or non-homeless services
16
Service integration: working with individual clients
27. That local interagency groups develop protocols and mechanisms for sharing information about individual clients who
use multiple agencies.17
Local groups Both
28. That DCP consider Street to Home’s Infoxchange system, Peel’s extranet program and the progress of the A Good Life
project to see what lessons they provide about sharing information about individual clients between services.
DCP Both
Service integration: mainstream services
29. That DoH use DHS Centrelink’s community engagement model to develop a service that provides outreach to
homeless people.
DoH Both
Service integration: local government
30. That DCP liaise with City of Perth and City of Fremantle to clarify their role in relation to homelessness and identify
potential areas for partnerships.
(See also Recommendations 8, 15, 25, 31, 32 and 33 that include a role for local governments)
DCP
Local
governments
Both
17 Similar work has been done in the past with the youth sector.
17
People in parks:
31. That an action research project be undertaken to coordinate existing outreach services to people in parks in Perth
that involves:
A suitable lead agency
Regular and consistent outreach sessions
Engagement style outreach that does not require participation in a program
Provision of brokerage funding to ensure flexible and immediate responses
Liaison with local government, particularly rangers and other staff who have regular contact with people
in parks
Documenting gaps in the outreach provision
Development of protocols and joint ways of working.
DCP Perth
32. That City of Perth fund the Nyoongar Patrol to deliver services in parks in its area, along the lines of City of Vincent and
City of Fremantle provision.
City of Perth Perth
33. That City of Perth and City of Fremantle review their public facilities to ensure there is access to basics like drinking
fountains, toilets and bins.
Cith of Perth
City of
Fremantle
Both
34. That an evaluation/research plan be put in place for Vincentcare’s acute homeless shelter to capture learning about
how this model works with the particularly chaotic group it targets and the impact of its design features.
DCP Perth
35. That DCP continue to explore options around nightshelter provision, Aboriginal hostels provision and visitors centres to
meet the accommodation needs of people in parks.
(See also Recommendation 9 about winter shelter provision)
DCP Both
18
Chapter 1: Introduction
You can go without eating for three days – your guts get so tired anyway.
– man met in Queen Square
Inner city services play a unique role in the homeless service system, operating as a central point of
service for homeless people from across the whole city. This reflects both the mobility of homeless
people and the accessibility of such services given the public transport infrastructure. In WA, this is
demonstrated with 32% of homeless clients in the state using services in inner city Perth and Fremantle.18
Given this concentration, discussions about inner city services tend to expand to draw in general
homelessness and sector-wide issues. This report, however, was commissioned to specifically review
homeless services in inner city Perth and Fremantle. While this cannot be done without placing them in
context and considering bigger picture issues, this review is limited by its geographical boundaries.
Inner city homeless services sit within the context of a chronic shortage of affordable housing in Western
Australia. 2011 census data shows median rents in Perth have increased by 78% since 2006.19 Research
undertaken by Anglicare found no affordable rental properties for people on Newstart/Youth
Allowance and only 0.2% available rental properties were affordable for people on Disability and Aged
Pensions (the two most common DHS Centrelink benefits accessed by homeless people).20 The social
housing system is also overloaded with December 2011 figures showing 17,126 people in metropolitan
Perth on the DoH waiting list, and 2,379 on the priority waiting list.21
Housing provision is beyond the scope of this current research, but it is worth framing the review in this
context as it is one of the most common concerns of services working with homeless people. The
pressure of this also distorts the capacity of the homeless service system to deliver outcomes for clients.
Without sufficient affordable housing options, clients are remaining longer in accommodation services
and affecting the availability of bedspaces for others. Shortage of supply has also resulted in instances
of services tightening their criteria and referral agencies “managing” information to ensure their clients
fit such criteria.22 Given this, while this review aims to look at ways the inner city homeless service system
can be improved, the external issue of lack of affordable housing will continue to have a significant
impact on the effectiveness of the homeless service system.
This review also sits within the context of other work commissioned by DCP examining the service
system. An evaluation of National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH) services is currently
underway, so whilst included in this review, issues with these services will primarily be picked up in that
18 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11 compared to AIHW (2011), “Government-Funded Specialist
Homeless Services – SAAP National Data Collection Annual Report 2010-11: Western Australia”, Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare 19 See Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012), “Housing costs – states and territories and capital cities fact sheet” 20 See “Rental Affordability Snapshot” (April 2012), Anglicare Australia – affordability was defined as rent at 30% of
income or less 21 See www.parliament.wa.gov.au – Hansard extract, Tuesday 21st February 2012 22 Instances of this were reported during several interviews and discussions during the research
19
evaluation. It is worth noting that during the research phase for this review, NPAH services received
much praise, with some concern about the lack of certainty about the future services it funds. The
women’s domestic and family violence sector has also just completed a sector scoping project which
reviews the provision of services in this area on a state-wide basis. There is a crossover between these
services and the homeless sector, but this review will only consider the use of such services by homeless
clients as this other project deals with their domestic and family violence work.
Given this context, the purpose of the review is to examine inner city homeless services in Perth and
Fremantle and:
conduct a stocktake of available services (see Chapters 4 and 5)
identify current demands for the various homeless service types (see Chapter 7)
identify current factors affecting the service system (see Chapters 8 and 9)
In light of this, the review is tasked with making recommendations regarding the mix of services required
to better address current demand and to improve integration of the homeless service system. The
review makes recommendations that include a wide ranging variety of suggestions with the aim of
providing readers with choices and responses to the issues raised. The review was also tasked with
specifically looking at issues relating to people in parks and providing recommendations addressing
unmet needs in this cohort. Given the particular interest in this area, a separate chapter23 is dedicated
to this group. Other key chapters are grouped around target groups, significant issues, and service
integration. As such this is not a review of homelessness, but a specific look at the homeless service
system within inner city areas.
23 See Chapter 10
20
Chapter 2: Methodology
He’s being housed in the public health system and in summer time he’s housed in the lock up.
– homeless person
The review was conducted by independent researchers, Starfish Consulting, and was monitored by a
steering committee established by DCP. In addition, the sector was invited to nominate for a reference
group to provide additional practical support for the research, with six people joining this group. The
review provided a range of opportunities for both services and homeless people to contribute their
knowledge and experience of inner city homeless services. Services were invited to participate
through:
Focus groups held in Perth, Fremantle and at the Specialist Homeless Services Conference. A
total of 69 people attended from across a range of both government and non-government
services. The focus groups were widely advertised and offered an opportunity for anyone in the
sector to contribute key ideas and qualitative data to the review.
Online surveys were sent to 68 services, of which 42 were identified by DCP and an additional
26 identified by the reference group or during the course of the research (see Appendix 1 for
full list). Replies were received from 58 services (representing a return rate of 85%). The online
survey gave services the opportunity to describe what they offered homeless people and
provide quantitative input into the review.
Strategic interviews were conducted with 15 key stakeholders in the sector to provide more
qualitative and detailed contributions.
Ad hoc meetings were also attended by the researcher during the course of the review,
including the Fremantle Interagency Meeting, Perth Homeless Reference Group, DCP intake
and assessment team meetings at both Perth and Fremantle offices, People in Parks Working
Group, Homeless Sector Network (hosted by St Bartholomew’s), Perth Registry Week and the
workshop held as part of City of Fremantle’s project on disruptive street present drinking. In
addition, meetings were also held with a few individual organisations to gather information
about their service provision.
Opportunities for homeless people to contribute were also provided via a series of informal interviews:
People currently using services were met during sessions at Ruah Centre, Tranby Day Centre, St
Patrick’s Community Centre, Passages Resource Centre and Street Connect. Contributions
were also gathered at residents’ meetings at St Bartholomew’s, Tanderra and Murali Lodge. A
total of 98 people were interviewed, of whom 29 were in Fremantle, 27 were women, 15 were
Aboriginal and 18 were under 20 years old.
21
People in parks were met through outreach sessions undertaken with St Patrick’s Street to Home
service in Fremantle and with Anawim’s alcohol and drug worker in Perth. A total of 27 people
in Fremantle and 28 people in Perth were interviewed, of whom 17 were women, 44 were
Aboriginal and 1 was under 20 years old.
In addition, quantitative data was drawn from a number of other sources, including:
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) provided a subset of their 2010-2011 NDCA
data covering services in inner city Perth and Fremantle24
Snapshots from the Online Vacancy Bed count
DCP Crisis Care, Perth District Office and Fremantle District Office interactions data
Police – snapshot figures of Wellington Square and Victoria Gardens
Perth Registry Week
Nyoongar Patrol data for its Fremantle and Vincent patrols25
24 Note: the nature of this and all AIHW NDCA data is that it only includes funded specialist homeless services 25 Note: Nyoongar Patrol is not funded to run patrols in City of Perth
22
Chapter 3: Levels of homelessness
How come so many people are homeless, with stuff-all money and not enough to survive on
the streets? How can they build mansions for themselves and leave people on the streets?
– homeless man sleeping rough
Before beginning the review, it is worth establishing the extent of homelessness in the inner city of Perth
and Fremantle to be able to adequately assess whether existing services are meeting demand.
Homelessness is, however, notoriously difficult to count and comprehensive information like census data
is not up to date. As a result, a range of different measures have been collated below to give a picture
of how levels of homelessness can be considered.
Homeless service users
According to Counting the Homeless26 which collates figures from the 2006 census and other sources,
WA’s homeless population was 13,391. Of this group 11% were living in Supported Accommodation
Assistance Program (SAAP) accommodation.27 More up to date information from the 2011 census has
not yet been released. When available, this will show the level of change in homeless figures. To gather
a picture of more recent numbers of homeless people accessing inner city homeless services, AIHW
provided NDCA data for 2010-1128 for the 34 DCP funded services in the inner city Perth and Fremantle
sample. 29 This showed 3,666 homeless people accessing inner city services of which: 30
42% were women
13% were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
5% were under 20 years old and 18% were over 50
The AIHW data also provides a picture of family groups. The 3,666 homeless people were accompanied
by a further 1,222 children. The make-up of family groups in Perth and Fremantle inner city homeless
services was:31
77% single people
4% couples
11% one person with child(ren)
4% couples with child(ren)32
26 Chris Chamberlain and David McKenzie (2006), Counting the Homeless, Australian Census Analytical Program,
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 27 The remainder were 12% in boarding houses, 59% living temporarily with friends/relatives and 18% in improvised
dwellings/sleeping rough 28 2011-12 data utilises the new SHP system and is not yet available
29 It is worth noting however, that the data is from the services provided in the inner city area so will be shaped as
much by what is offered as it is by the numbers of homeless people within these groups. 30 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11 31 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11
23
Rough sleepers
Within the group of homeless people is the more vulnerable sub-group of rough sleepers. According to
“The Road Home”33 there were 2,392 people sleeping rough in WA in 2006. Of these, 23% (ie 767
people) were in Perth. The AIHW data showed 14% (740) of service users over the course of the year
were sleeping rough prior to accessing a support service. The difference between these figures may
indicate that rough sleepers are less likely to engage with services and seek accommodation. The
Registry Week data34 from a three-day snapshot in August found 185 people sleeping rough, in squats,
bushland, day centres and at soup patrols in the inner city Perth/Vincent area.35 Of these, 158
completed a survey which found:
111 were rough sleepers, 10 were couch surfing and 19 were in crisis accommodation
23% were under 25 years old and 18% were over 55
35% were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander
While not exclusively rough sleepers, another indicator of the numbers of homeless people who have
no stable accommodation and use the inner city can be seen in those who use day centres as their
postal address. While these figures offer nothing definitive, they are an interesting indication of the
volume of people who are either insecurely housed or sleeping rough at a given time. During the
interviews for this research in the day centres, a snapshot of these were counted showing:
233 people had mail waiting for them at Tranby
135 people had mail waiting for them at Ruah Centre
61 people had mail waiting for them at Passages
An estimated 100-120 people used St Patrick’s as a postal address
Of the 79 people36 interviewed in day centres for this review, 23% were sleeping rough. Data about
numbers of people in parks is presented in Chapter 10 which is devoted to this subject.
Demand for services
The AIHW data provided in Table 1 provides insight into the types of services and support people
approaching inner city homeless services are seeking. While there is an obvious gap in the data with
20% citing other reasons than those listed, it does highlight the particular demand for support around
financial issues and more complex support needs like mental health, drug and alcohol issues. Domestic
and family violence has been left separate in the table because of the specialist service responses in
32 Note these figures are calculated from support periods data. Also they do not add up to 100% as the remainder
was categorised as ‘unknown’ or ‘other’. 33 “The Road Home – A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness” (2008), Homeless Taskforce; Department of
Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra
34 Perth Registry Week Briefing (2012), Ruah Community Services, Perth
35 The area surveyed included the City of Perth and City of Vincent with Nyoongar Patrol and Street Connect
involved to ensure adequate coverage of Aboriginal and young people 36 This figure excludes the 19 hostel residents interviewed in hostels
24
this area by refuges. Other forms of family conflict and abuse include relationship breakdown, sexual
abuse, time out from family and emotional abuse.
Table 1: Reasons for seeking assistance37
Reasons for seeking assistance Number %
Family conflict / abuse 1,486 15%
Domestic and family violence 868 9%
Financial issues 2,094 22%
Eviction / housing crisis 1,179 12%
Mental health, drug, alcohol and health issues 1,640 17%
Recent movement (from institution, to area with no means of
support, itinerant)
484 5%
Other 1,958 20%
Don't know/no information 54 1%
Total number of reasons for seeking assistance* 9,779 100%
*Can provide more than one
Table 2 shows what support was requested, provided and referred within inner city funded services in
2010-11 (see Appendix 2 for detailed breakdown).38 This table shows the types of services available and
extent to which they are able to meet the demand of clients. Whilst there is a strong correlation
between services needed and services provided, this table gives no indication of the unmet demand
of clients, which are not recorded, or of those clients who are unable to access inner city services.
Table 2: Services needed, provided and referred
Type of service Needed % Provided % Referred %
Housing and accommodation 4,199 17% 3,751 15% 748 30%
Financial / employment 2,605 11% 3,182 13% 350 14%
Personal support 3,509 14% 3,425 14% 131 5%
General support / advocacy 5,187 21% 5,375 22% 488 19%
Specialist services 2,673 11% 2,555 10% 634 25%
Basic needs 4,237 17% 4,615 19% 79 3%
Other 2,154 9% 2,111 8% 79 3%
Total 24,564 100% 25,014 100% 2,509 100%
AIHW did not provide data on clients turned away from the sample set of inner city services. However,
this data is available for WA for 2010-11 as shown in Table 3. While there may be some differences when
only inner city services are considered, it does provide a sense that of all new client requests for
accommodation in specialist homeless services, half may not be able to find somewhere appropriate.
37 From AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11 38 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11
25
When this is put in the context of the number of people already accommodated in such services,
however, those turned away represent only a small percentage of the total demand.
Table 3: Total people turned away in WA (17-23 November 2010 and 4-10 May 2011)39
Supply and demand of accommodation services WA daily average
People requiring new immediate accommodation
Not accommodated (turned away) 30.0
Newly accommodated 30.6
Total requiring new immediate accommodation 60.6
Turn-away
(per cent requiring new immediate accommodation)
49.5%
Total people both continuing and requiring new accommodation
Newly accommodated 30.6
Continuing accommodation 1,171.4
Total accommodated 1,202.0
Total demand for immediate accommodation
(continuing and new)
1,232.0
Turn-away
(per cent total demand for immediate accommodation)
2.4%
The other demand figures made available that have a specific inner city focus are provided by DCP
about interactions with people presenting with homelessness as a primary issue. The Crisis Care figures in
the table below are for the whole state, but the Fremantle and Perth district offices are for their specific
regions only.
Table 4: DCP office interactions where homelessness was primary issue 2011-12
DCP district office Intake to DCP
One-off
information or
referral
Unable to
proceed*
Total
Crisis Care Unit 108 1.5% 6,607 98% 31 0.1% 6,746
Fremantle District 36 24% 102 70% 9 6% 147
Perth District 46 34% 87 63% 4 3% 137
Total 190 3% 6,796 96% 44 0.1% 7,030
* eg because client did not show up or left the office before the referral could be made
39 From “People turned away from government-funded specialist homeless accommodation 2010-11 – Western
Australian appendix
26
Chapter 4: Current services
If it wasn’t for the staff at this centre, half these people would be dead.
– homeless man
The first major task of this review is to undertake a stocktake of what services are currently available in
inner city Perth and Fremantle. Information was supplied by services through an online survey.40 Whilst
not overly detailed, the information provided gives a clear picture of the basic level of service provision
in these areas. Appendices 3 to 6 provide details of numbers of bedspaces and support services
available in both residential and non-residential services.
Accommodation services
Half of what we get from places like this is caring and friendship – we watch each other’s back
– homeless man
How many bedspaces are there?
Appendix 3 details the number of bedspaces reported in inner city Perth and Fremantle. This highlights
the different levels of service provision for particular groups. The research found 359 bedspaces for
men, 51 for women and 79 for either. There were also spaces for 1 couple, 38 families and 36 women
with accompanying children.41 The table also lists a selection of unfunded low-no support services
including lodging houses, nightshelters and budget accommodation. These include a further 267 men’s
spaces, 84 women, 188 for either and 40 for couples.
The issue of women’s accommodation was raised by both the sector and clients in interviews and
forums. The data shows the limited options for women who are primarily homeless. Of the 36 women’s
crisis/direct access beds42 available in the inner city 9 are for general homeless women. These 9
bedspaces are both in unfunded services which offer no/low support – 7 are in The Sisters’ Place which
offers overnight shelter only and 2 are in CROFT which offers a 30-day stay with only referral to external
services for support. The remaining 27 have the following specialist target groups:
3 are youth specific
40 Note: some accommodation services are not located strictly within the inner city areas, but house clients who
identify closely with the inner city and are referred by inner city homeless agencies. 41 Note the low numbers of women with accompanying children reflects that most women’s refuges are not in the
inner city area. For an analysis of women’s refuge services see the Women’s Council for Family and Domestic
Violence Service’s sector scoping study. 42 Crisis or direct access beds are those that when available can be accessed immediately. In contrast, transitional
or medium term beds have a longer length of stay, may involve a delayed assessment process and waiting list, or
only be accessible after a period of time in crisis/direct access bedspaces.
27
3 are CaLD43 specific
8 are for Indigenous women
13 are in domestic and family violence services
Of the 13 domestic violence bedspaces, refuges indicate that 4 of these may be available for
homeless women. Generally speaking though, high demand for women’s refuges across the
metropolitan area results in services prioritising women leaving domestic and family violence. Zonta
(the only refuge accepting single women that is not in the survey area) has 21 spaces for single
women, and usually operates with 20% homeless clients. In contrast, of the 144 men’s crisis beds, only 6
are restricted to specific groups with 3 set aside for youth and 3 for CaLD.
The other issue raised in feedback from the sector is family accommodation. While there are 34 places
for families, 23 of these are in specialist CaLD services. Critically the majority of family places are not
crisis services. Only the Perth Asian Community Centre reports that it offers crisis accommodation to
families (of which it has 13 places, but these are part of a dedicated CaLD service).
The issue of couples was raised by a significant number of clients in interviews, with several people
reporting they either had to separate or choose to remain homeless because of the lack of options.
There were 4 hostel spaces for couples reported – 3 at CROFT where no in-house support is available
and 1 in the Perth Asian Community Centre’s specialist CaLD service. The other couples spaces were in
Jewell House which is a low-cost hotel and beyond the price range of most.
What support is available?
Appendix 4 details the support levels offered at different accommodation services. From this it can be
seen that:
A few agencies report that they directly provide specialist support. Of the 30 accommodation
services listed, 5 directly provide mental health support and 4 directly provide support with
alcohol and drug issues. The funding source and extent of this has not been recorded, but
known examples vary from funding for a specialist worker from the relevant government
department to staff who have specialist skills in that area, though were not employed or
funded directly for this purpose. Attracting and retaining staff with a clinical specialism in a
homeless service can be difficult, though having them as part of the team provides the
benefits of continued availability and support/education of other staff.
A number of agencies appear to be making good use of visiting specialist services to provide
specialist support. Visiting alcohol and drug services were reported in 8 services, health in 8
services, legal in 6 and mental health in 9. In interviews and forums, agencies reported the
value of this in assisting them manage clients with more complex needs. From an employment
perspective, external specialist agencies are able to provide a higher level of clinical support
and specialist supervision than a homeless agency can.
43 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
28
Casework is a commonly used tool which is provided in 73% of services. Those which do not
provide casework tend to be lodging houses and night services (ie The Sisters’ Place
nightshelter and Bridge House’s sobering-up unit).
Two-thirds of services report offering recreation, employment, education, and training
assistance. The extent of this, however, is not recorded. Given observations of services and
feedback from clients in interviews, it may be that for many (though not all) this work is not
extensive and provided on an ad hoc rather than strategic basis.
About a third of agencies use outreach as a tool for casework and/or follow-up to ex-clients.
Those with this capacity are able to undertake active referrals and/or provide more flexible
support to clients. They are also able to provide a better transition for ex-clients.
The list does include a few services that offer mainly lodging or budget accommodation
because they were identified by DCP or clients as critical accommodation options within the
inner city. They do not, however, offer much in terms of support or access to services. People
staying in such accommodation may:
- Have no/low support needs
- Be disconnected from the service system and have unmet needs
- Access support through non-residential services
Not all services gave details about the cost of their accommodation. Only The Sisters’ Place
and Bridge House (for the sobering-up and detox facilities only) reported that their
accommodation is free. Other costs vary enormously from $12 per night in Anawim to $64 per
night in Jewell House. A number of services, particularly those using community housing
facilities, stated that rent is based on a percentage of income (usually 25-30%).
Non-residential services
I don’t have to sit on a park bench because I can come here. Sometimes I get up only
because I know I can come here – it helps me get through the day
– homeless woman
While data was supplied by44 all accommodation services in the survey sample, online surveys were not
completed by the following services and so are not included in the Appendices or discussion below:
DCP nominated services:
DCP – Fremantle District Office
55 Central – Street to Home
44 or confirmed by phone
29
Salvation Army – Street to Home
UnitingCare West – Street to Home
Reference group nominated services:
Mobile GP
Salvation Army – Soup Run
UnitingCare West – Assessment
It can, however, be assumed that DCP’s Fremantle Office provides similar services to the Perth Office
and that the Street to Home services are similar to those included in the tables. The Mobile GP is a
specialist medical service that runs sessions at a range of day centres and other homeless services.
Salvation Army’s Soup Run is primarily a food service and UnitingCare West’s Assessment service offers
support, information and advice, as well as acting as an access point to the wide range of services the
organisation runs.
Appendix 5 details the basic needs support offered through non-residential services. It is worth noting
that:
Perth has a much higher concentration of services than Fremantle.
No services offer storage facilities. Ruah’s Street to Home service indicated it offered some
support in this area but this is to selected case-managed clients only. The issue of storage and
the impact of this was raised frequently by clients.
Laundry facilities are only available in homeless services to young people using Passages or to
case-managed clients of St Bartholomew’s Street to Home.
Showers, clothes and food are offered by a variety of agencies. However, homeless young
people in Fremantle are unable to access these as their age excludes them from St Patrick’s. In
Perth, Passages provides a safe environment for young people to access basic needs services.
Appendix 6 provides details of the support offered by non-residential services in Perth and Fremantle.
Similar observations can be made about these as were made about the accommodation services
including:
Understandably, casework is provided less in non-residential services than in accommodation
services, with 54% of services indicating they have this capacity. It is, however, used across a
range of services, including open-access services that operate primarily on a drop-in basis.
Visiting services are used by a variety of homeless agencies and are central to the success of
day centres to provide a range of supports and service provision to clients. Of the 18 homeless
services listed (excluding specialist services), 7 have alcohol and drug services visit, 9 have
health services, 7 legal and 8 mental health. There is a fairly regular schedule of visiting services
that cycle between the different centres, including Mobile GP, Street Doctor, DHS Centrelink,
mental health nurses, and Street Law. Particularly with doctors and DHS Centrelink, the Perth
centres communicate well and direct clients to where they are currently available. Despite
30
being a youth service, Passages will allow older clients to wait on its verandah to see the Street
Doctor or DHS Centrelink if they need to on days they are visiting there.
Half of the homeless non-residential services report offering support with employment,
education and training. It is, however, unclear to what extent this support is available and
whether it is offered in an ad hoc or structured manner given comments by clients and
observations of services.
Outreach is used as a tool by a range of services. The way it is used varies between services. Of
the 27 services listed, 9 use outreach to engage new clients and 8 as a visiting service to other
agencies. Others tend to use it as a resource for existing clients, with 13 using it to facilitate
casework and 5 to offer follow-up support. These represent distinctly different ways of using
outreach. It was clear in the consultation that when these distinctions are not made, services
and clients have confused expectations about what services offer. Engagement style
outreach45 is designed to draw in clients who are disconnected from services. It operates in
outdoor settings, making and maintaining contact with people as a first step into service
provision. Engagement outreach may also be undertaken as a visiting specialist service to
bridge the gap for homeless clients who may feel uncomfortable to unwilling to access certain
services. It was observed during the research that using the term ‘outreach’ for casework and
follow-up support set up the expectation that new clients could access such support, when in
fact it is offered primarily to existing and ex-clients of the service. As such it is merely active
referrals and ongoing support that is not offered on-site. It does, however, enable services to
offer flexible and responsive support to their clients.
45 This report will refrain from using the common term Assertive Outreach as it has been used in such a variety of
contexts that it is complicit with this confusion.
31
Chapter 5: New services and proposals
I can’t budget – I don’t have enough to budget anyway.
– homeless man
In addition to the services discussed in the previous chapters, there are several developments identified
in the sector which are currently being established that will add to the service mix. While this list is not
exhaustive, it provides an indication of some of the upcoming changes to the sector.
Lime Street: St Bartholomew’s House recently opened at its new premises. While this facility does not
add any additional crisis or transitional bedspaces, it will expand the aged care capacity from 20 to 40
and incorporate 54 new, permanent units that will provide tenancies for homeless people. These units
represent new exit points for clients of the service and will operate under similar conditions as DoH
properties. Lime Street will provide improved facilities with quality accommodation and plans to use the
facilities to run more programs, host visiting agencies and invite clients of other services to participate in
workshops. St Bartholomew’s has also established the A Good Life project which will offer 12 months’
intensive daily support to chronically long-term homeless people. This project will benefit from a low
case load and brokerage funding, enabling it to offer flexible, high level support.
Beacon Project: The Salvation Army has closed its 54-bed Lentara hostel and moved to temporary
accommodation at Murali Lodge. The Lentara site is being redeveloped into the Beacon Project that
will replace both this and the Army’s existing 23-bed Tanderra service. Beacon will have 102
bedspaces, providing an additional 25 spaces, and replacing its mix of shared and single rooms with all
single en-suite rooms. Salvation Army will use the new Beacon Project to draw together at a single site
non-residential services working with homeless people including its Street to Home, Inner City Outreach,
drug and alcohol support, BP program46 and other ancillary services. It hopes to provide a more
intensive case management model for residents that will see people moving through to longer-term
options after a six month stay. In the past, both Salvation Army hostels have had some longer-term
residents who have stayed for several years. With the changes in the service they have moved most of
these on to aged care, Street to Home and DoH housing. To provide the level of support Salvation Army
envisage, the Beacon will need additional resources. Without the right staffing ratio the support may
become focused more on crisis management and result in long-term residents rather than case-
managed pathways out of homelessness.
Foyer Project: Anglicare is in the process of developing a Foyer Project with 98 studio apartments. This is
due for completion in 2013 and will house homeless or at risk young people and young parents47 for up
to two years. The service will be the first purpose-built Australian project based on the well-established
Foyer model which incorporates good quality transitional housing with active employment, education
46 The BP program is an employment and training project supported by BP Australia which provides tenancies in a
head-leased property and full-time employment with BP to homeless people. 47 Aged 16-23 on entry
32
and training support. The vision is to create a positive and aspirational community which will support
young people to establish their lives away from homelessness. The project is being developed in
partnership with Foundation Housing and Central Institute of Technology. Foyer Oxford listed in
Appendix 3 is being used as an interim project to establish the staff team and model. When completed,
the Leederville Foyer Project will replace this.
Acute night shelter: Vincentcare expects to open Tom Fisher House early in 2014.48 This will be a tertiary
night-time service for long-term chronically homeless people. The model is currently being fine-tuned,
but it is expected that it will only accept referrals from Street to Home, WA Police and the Nyoongar
Patrol. Potential clients will be triaged by phone and will come to the service when a place is secured.
It will offer overnight accommodation for people who need respite from rough sleeping due to health,
mental health or other crises. It may also act to hold people for a few days while they are securing
accommodation or transport. The service will have ten en-suite rooms that are either single or for
couples. The service will accept men, women, couples, and people with dogs. It is designed for people
with complex needs including those with mental health, alcohol and drug issues, health problems, a
history of violence, and bans from other services. The team will include Registered Nurse and
Emergency Nurse roles, mental health staff and provide two overnight waking staff.
Wilf Sargent: UnitingCare West’s Fremantle service is in the process of redevelopment. It formerly had 4
two-bed rooms. Depending on Council approval, the new service will aim for ten single rooms. In the
interim it is using 2 four-bed houses. When the new service is open it may be able to consider becoming
a mixed service rather than male-only. There is also the possibility that it will be able to negotiate to
keep the interim houses and, with additional funding, use them to provide family accommodation.
Registry Week: Whilst not a new service as such, Registry Week represents a new way of approaching
service delivery. Ruah Community Services in conjunction with a range of partner and supporting
organisations49 conducted Registry Week in August. This used a Vulnerability Index to survey rough
sleepers and assess their homeless history and health needs. Registry Week is an internationally
developed process that aims to find people sleeping rough, often disconnected from the service
system, and prioritise those most in need and with the highest mortality risk. Ruah’s Street to Home
service will be working through the most vulnerable on the register and liaising closely with St
Bartholomew’s Street to Home team. Ruah is also in the process of identifying additional support and
housing options. The Registry Week model is usually tied to offering housing and intensive support, often
in a Housing First model.
Proposals in earlier stages of development
In addition to the projects listed above which are underway, the research found a number of proposals
that organisations are currently in the process of developing models and seeking support for. While the
sector has a wide range of ideas and strategies it would like to see implemented, those listed below
48 There is also a possibility of interim premises being set up prior to this. 49 including DCP, DoH, City of Perth, City of Vincent, Nyoongar Patrol, Anglicare Street Connect, WA Police,
Department of Health, Mobile GP, Hills Community Support Group, Salvation Army, St Bartholomew’s House
33
represent proposals which have undergone some level of work and to which there is some
commitment. There may be additional proposals that were not found during the research that could
be added to the list below.
Mental Health Linkages Project: A proposal has been developed to provide mental health support to
residents in St Bartholomew’s House, Salvation Army, 55 Central and Foundation Housing lodging houses
along a continuing care model as used by Mobile Clinical Outreach Team (MCOT). The project aims to
reduce barriers to accessing supported accommodation due to mental health problems by providing
a flexible inreach service with care coordination plans that has the capacity to maintain contact with
clients prior to moving in, if they move between services, and when they move on to long-term options.
The proposal argues that it expects cost savings by way of reduced emergency department use,
hospital admissions, and demand on acute mental health, drug/alcohol, police and justice systems.
The proposal was submitted to the Mental Health Commission who provided positive feedback and,
while there is currently not funding available, the Commission was interested in seeing if established
services like MCOT could be developed more.
Emergency family accommodation: The Fremantle interagency group that was established in response
to the regional homeless plan has established a sub-group to work on a model for emergency
accommodation for families. This proposal has come out of background work between St Patrick’s and
the Fremantle Multicultural Centre and is in response to the lack of such crisis options for homeless
families who do not have a domestic violence background. St Patrick’s has identified 2 two-bedroom
houses that are collocated which it can use for this purpose, and the sub-group is in the process of
gathering research and fine-tuning the model. It is planned to have formal Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) in place with transitional and other housing providers to ensure the properties
are used on a short-term basis and continue to be available for crisis responses. Once the model is
refined, the group will be seeking funding for the project.
Family day centre: UnitingCare West currently runs Tranby Day Centre and is developing a model to run
a similar service for homeless families. Currently, people with children are not permitted in any of the
day centre services in either Perth or Fremantle. Both Tranby and other services have noted increases in
the numbers of families seeking assistance who are primary homeless and sleeping in cars. UCW
currently responds to this by channelling families away from the day centre to its assessment service
which can provide immediate support needs with food, clothing and referrals.50 UCW would like to trial
a day centre style facility for families that provides support, meals, showers, laundry, parenting advice
as well as access to mainstream resources such as medical, DHS Centrelink and housing services. UCW
has costed this model and presented the concept to DCP.
Fremantle nightshelter: In response to ongoing issues with street drinkers, City of Fremantle
commissioned a feasibility study for a nightshelter and/or sobering-up facility. Whilst the City is not a
direct service provider, it is supportive of work with homeless and vulnerable people in its area and
undertook the study to provide background information for and help facilitate the work of local service
50 In May this year, UCW’s assessment team had 13 families it was providing ongoing support to in response to this
(with others using their service on a one-off basis)
34
providers. The report was released in September and recommends further investigation of the
nightshelter/sobering-up facility proposal and consideration of establishing a safe place to drink during
the day. A summary of interviews with people in parks conducted as part of the inner city review was
supplied to the project. At present, the report is newly out and it is uncertain how this project will
develop.
Central homeless referral centre: DCP recently formed a steering committee to develop a model for a
homeless referral service. It is envisaged that this would have specialist, knowledgeable staff who would
provide people at risk of, or experiencing homelessness with an assessment and referral service across
the metropolitan area. Whilst the model is not yet developed, it is envisaged that it will have a centre
where people can visit and will provide an alternative to homeless people being directed to DCP
district offices which focus primarily on child protection issues. It is likely that such a service will be
provided by a non-government agency.
35
Chapter 6: Models to consider
You need rent first, food second, then its hell for leather …
– homeless man
During the course of the research, two key models were identified as being useful in framing questions
and proposing strategies for inner city Perth and Fremantle homeless services. The first is the model used
by DHS Centrelink’s community engagement officers. The second uses the Outcomes Star to outline
necessary types of service response that are compatible with client need. These are by no means
definitive or the only appropriate models, but are presented here as a reference point to assist with
later chapters.
DHS Centrelink – community engagement
The diagram below represents the model used by the DHS Centrelink community engagement officers
(CEOs) to engage and work with homeless people. The team works in both the inner city Perth and
Fremantle areas. The work of this team was highly praised by services and clients who see it as an
excellent example of how a mainstream service like DHS Centrelink designed a service to work directly
with homeless people. As the diagram shows, a CEO team undertakes regular outreach sessions in
parks, homeless agencies and youth justice services. The aim of DHS Centrelink is for clients to
participate. To be able to do this effectively with homeless people, staff work to understand issues
affecting their lives and the drivers that can influence these.
The success of the team depends on regular routes and provision of a consistent service. Staff see
clients as required – often fortnightly to lodge forms – but will see some on a daily basis for informal
contact. Staff may work with clients on issues around debt, eviction, fines, and licences. They will also
negotiate with JSAs when clients face breaches for non-attendance. As such they assist mainstream
systems and services to be more responsive to the particular circumstances faced by homeless people.
Conversations with clients are often broad ranging to help identify issues that limit their participation. As
a result, staff also make a wide range of referrals around accommodation, mental health, drug and
alcohol issues, etc. When clients are stabilised and well established they are encouraged to move on to
using mainstream DHS Centrelink services, enabling the team to remain focused on the most
marginalised clients. If, however, there is a critical event in an ex-client’s life and they are no longer
able to cope with an office environment, they may return to the community team.
36
The knowledge and culture of the team is maintained through weekly meetings with monthly speakers,
plus adequate time within each role for networking and community engagement with agencies. The
team is part of a network of CEOs nationwide that have monthly team leader hook-ups and a
mechanism for providing feedback on best practice and trends to Department of Human Services. The
team also works with mainstream DHS Centrelink offices to develop their understanding of issues and
referral options for homeless clients. This is critical as homelessness has been identified as part of the
work of all staff, not just the engagement officers. As part of this, the CEO team developed a DVD for
training purposes.
Specialist team of
8 CEOs* in inner
city areas
Includes 3 youth specialists
and 2 Indigenous CEOs
Mobile office resources:
Laptops, mobiles
Remote access to systems
Resource files, forms
Proactive team culture
Level APS 5 enabling:
Discretionary capacity
Leadership
Skills and experience
Weekly sessions in
homeless centres:
Tranby Day Centre
Ruah Centre
Shopfront
St Patrick’s
Passages
Street Connect
Weekly outreach sessions:
Perth/Vincent parks
Perth street walk
Fremantle park (with
Nyoongar Patrol)
Children’s Court
Justice/youth sessions:
Banksia Detention
Rangeview Remand
Outcare youth
services
Wirrpanda
Foundation
Engagement /
build trust
Arrange & maintain
Centrelink payments
Identify issues
and triggers
Referral and
liaise with JSAs
Help with ID, TFN,
bank account
Referrals to wide
range of services
* Community Engagement Officer
90 CEOs nationwide
specialise in
homelessness
37
Outcomes Star
To provide another useful context for understanding service types it is worth considering the Outcomes
Star model.51 The Star is a set of tools for supporting and measuring change when working with people
and was originally developed and extensively tested in the homeless sector. It is used by several WA
organisations working in the sector including St Bartholomew’s House, Salvation Army, Red Cross and
Vincentcare, and has been used both interstate and internationally. It uses a ladder of change
concept to identify where individual clients are in terms of a range of areas of their life, providing both
a case management tool and a detailed outcomes measure. Where the concept is useful in the
context of this review is how it has been translated into service planning. Appendix 8 summarises the
structure of the Star and the types of services that would be most appropriate for different stages on
the ladder of change. Using this model it can be seen that inner city services in Perth and Fremantle
concentrate on the “Accepting Help” style of service delivery – ie hostels, day centres and community
services that are able to work with chaotic people, focus on practical issues, and engage clients in
taking responsibility. This is, however, the second of five levels of service type correlated to the ladder of
change used in the model.
Before “Accepting Help” there are two steps on the ladder of change grouped together under the
category of “Stuck”.52 At this level people are often causing harm, not aware of their problems and
unwilling to talk about issues out of fear and mistrust. In the interviews when clients talk about reasons
they don’t use services it is clear there is a proportion of the group that is in this phase (particularly
among people in parks). Other than basic needs services, most inner city Perth and Fremantle services
require a certain level of compliance and engagement for people to access them. Using the
Outcomes Star concept, however, provides an understanding of why such services fail to attract and
engage people who are “stuck”. It also suggests the types of services that would be able to work with
them and the outcomes that could be expected. Informal drop-in services providing basic needs,
engagement style outreach and low rules hostels can work effectively with this group with the aim of
preventing harm, reducing the impact on community and moving people to the “Accepting Help”
stage.
At the other end of the ladder, the “Believing”, “Learning” and “Self Reliance” stages give an
indication of the extent and range of follow-up services that can be provided to take clients through
the process to independence and fully out of the cycle of homelessness. Inner city homeless services in
Perth and Fremantle tend to stop at stage three, with little work done to integrate people back into the
community, support meaningful training and employment involvement, and build sustainable
independence. Cutting off support services before people reach the end of the ladder of change
opens up the possibilities of relapse and a return to homelessness and other problems.
51 See outcomesstar.org.uk 52 The language used in the Outcomes Star was designed and tested with homeless people to best describe how
they feel.
38
Chapter 7: Target groups
There’s no such thing as hard to reach groups – there’s hard to reach services.
– homeless sector worker
Consultations during the research made it clear that there is a general shortage of provision to meet
the demand from homeless people in Perth and Fremantle inner city areas. However, as indicated
earlier, the levels of service provision vary for different target groups within the inner city Perth and
Fremantle homeless service systems. The research identifies five population groups that have a
particularly limited supply of services – women, people with complex needs, families, young people
and couples. Services for Aboriginal clients were also mentioned, though as the research has a specific
section dedicated people in parks, it was mostly spoken about in this context. Issues around Aboriginal
clients will be addressed in Chapter 10.
Homeless women
Why should we have to lie to get a roof over our heads, or rely on some
man for a bed at night?
– homeless woman
The lack of accommodation options for homeless women was raised repeatedly throughout the
research. AIHW data shows that 42% of clients using inner city services were women,53 yet only 18% of
the single gender accommodation is for women.54 This is further complicated when, as detailed above,
only 9 of the 36 crisis/direct access women’s beds are available for homeless women without age,
ethnicity or domestic violence restrictions. In comparison, 6 of the 144 equivalent men’s beds are
restricted to specialist target groups. Snapshots of daily vacancies recorded for DCP’s bedcount in
March (see Appendix 7) show that at 3:30pm there were the following bedspaces available (this
includes those with other target group restrictions):
3.1 for men (daily average), though on 20% of the days there were no vacancies
1.8 for single women escaping domestic and family violence (daily average)
0.6 for a single homeless woman (daily average), though on a quarter of the days there were
no vacancies
The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) response at Tranby provides some
evidence of the demand for accommodation by homeless women. Across the four days of the
extended service, 21% of those using it were women. On the final night, one third of the 36 people who
53 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11 54 as shown in Appendix 3 – this could rise to as much as 25% if the mixed gender accommodation was split 50/50,
but in most services this is not done and no accurate breakdown of gender allocations in these services is given
39
slept at Tranby were women. Registry Week provides further evidence of the demand, with women
making up 28% of the rough sleepers and homeless people identified.55
In interviews with clients, women’s accommodation was the most commonly mentioned housing issue
after the general lack of affordable housing. Both men and women talked about the lack of options for
homeless women. Women talked about lying to refuges or staying in unsafe situations to get
accommodation for the night. Outside the women’s refuge system, The Sisters’ Place night shelter in
Fremantle offers a basic option on weeknights only. One person spoke about the impact of this,
observing that women crash at lodging houses over the weekend. Another was concerned about
safety and levels of violence experienced by women when sleeping out. People interviewed
highlighted the need for a hostel for women, or for a mixed hostel with a women’s floor.
Half of the key stakeholders spoke about the lack of women’s options. They noted that the use of
refuges as the main model for women left women who are homeless for other reasons with few options.
The high occupancy rate in refuges also results in these services tightening their criteria, resulting in
incidents of women being refused accommodation because domestic violence was not recent
(because she stayed with family and friends for a while as a first option) or women lying about their
domestic violence history to secure a bed. Where women have additional support needs like mental
health, drug or alcohol issues, it becomes even harder to find accommodation options. Women’s
accommodation was also mentioned in all the focus groups and was the most commonly commented
on lack of accommodation in the online survey. The table below indicates how limited service
providers find accommodation provision for different groups. Within this, women were seen as the
second most poorly provided for after homeless families.
Table 5: Online survey responses about accommodation provision for different target groups
% indicating limited to very limited provision
Emergency
accommodation
Non-emergency
accommodation
Men (homeless and inadequately housed) 40% 56%
Women (homeless and inadequately housed) 85% 89%
Young people (homeless and inadequately housed) 71% 79%
Families (homeless and inadequately housed) 88% 92%
Women escaping domestic and family violence 46% 69%
The current make up of inner city homeless services in Perth and Fremantle put homeless women in a
difficult position. Accommodation options for women are primarily within domestic and family violence
services – which often cite the uncomfortable fit of managing the two target groups, and prioritise
women escaping domestic violence in their intake. Any accommodation for women outside the refuge
sector is in low/no support options like The Sisters’ Place nightshelter, CROFT or lodging houses. This in
effect means that homeless women do not have access to supported accommodation services that
55 From Perth Registry Week Briefing (2012), Ruah Community Services
40
will provide them with casework and assistance to find pathways out of homelessness or address any
additional support needs.
Increasing the capacity of bedspaces for women in the existing service environment poses some
difficulties. While one focus group openly discussed reallocating men’s bedspaces to mixed or
women’s provision, this solution met objections as, while men are better provided for, there is still high
demand for limited vacancies. Lime Street and the Beacon Project will, however, result in
improvements and expansion of men’s accommodation. Throughout the research, two services
indicated that they may be interested in changing their target groups. As already discussed, Wilf
Sargent is being redeveloped and in the new premises may have the capacity to become a mixed
service. This will depend on planning approval and the final design of the new building, but it could
result in a ten-bed transitional/medium-term accommodation service taking both men and women. 55
Central was also interested in specialising their service. It currently has a 24-bed men’s hostel with single
rooms clustered into groups of four. The design and size gives it the capacity to be more creative with
its target group. When originally interviewed, 55 Central was interested in developing its service to
specifically target homeless people with mental health issues. This option would address the needs of a
group that is often difficult to place or refused access to accommodation services. Alternatively the
size and layout of the building could make it suited to a mixed service that could accept men or
women into the clusters of four, depending on demand. A mixed service could also offer options for
couples.
Recommendation:
1. That DCP investigate options for increasing accommodation for homeless women. This
additional provision should not be part of domestic and family violence services, but
have a homeless specific focus and provide additional support services. Options to
consider include:
Supporting Wilf Sargent House with its redevelopment proposal and options to
move to a mixed target group
Identifying any other services that may consider changing or expanding their
target group
Funding a new homeless women’s service – this could be used to increase the
capacity in both the homeless and domestic violence sectors as it would
inevitably house some women whose homelessness included experiences of
violence, and enable refuges to focus on domestic and family violence.
2. That DCP investigate the possibilities suggested for changing or expanding 55 Central’s
target group, including becoming a mixed service or specialising in homeless people
with mental health problems. Alternative services should also be considered that could
offer specialist or mixed accommodation for homeless people.
41
People with complex needs
Don’t mind him – he’s hearing voices.
– day centre user, as a man walks around shouting threats at people
The table below shows whether services will accept people with complex needs. It indicates that while
only a limited number of services exclude people automatically for mental health, drug or alcohol
issues, about half limit access in some form (whether by numbers, access to external support or on a
case by case basis). When accommodation services are considered alone, this drops further to less
than a third with no restrictions on people with current drug and alcohol issues, and less than a quarter
with no restrictions on people with severe and enduring mental health issues.
Table 6: Percentage of services accepting people with specialist support needs
Does your service accept
people who have:
No Only limited
numbers
Only with
external
support
On a case
by case
basis
Yes
Type of service
All
serv
ice
s
Ac
co
mm
.
on
ly
All
serv
ice
s
Ac
co
mm
.
on
ly
All
serv
ice
s
Ac
co
mm
.
on
ly
All
serv
ice
s
Ac
co
mm
.
on
ly
All
serv
ice
s
Ac
co
mm
.
on
ly
Mental health issues
0% 0% 3% 4% 0% 0% 33% 42% 64% 54%
Severe and enduring
mental health issues
11% 4% 5% 9% 7% 13% 30% 52% 47% 22%
Current drug and alcohol
problems
7% 8% 0% 0% 9% 13% 28% 50% 57% 29%
The Registry Week process highlights the levels of complex need among rough sleepers and vulnerable
homeless people in the inner city, with 35% of the 158 people surveyed having tri-morbidity of mental
illness, substance abuse and medical problems. The impact of access restrictions on such clients is
reflected in the difficulty agencies report around clients with complex needs. When considering their
own service, 35% reported they were sometimes unable to meet homeless people’s needs because
they could not take on people with complex needs. When thinking about the service system as a
whole:
44% find there is limited or very limited provision of specialist services
33% said their work was sometimes undermined by poor access to specialist services, and a
further 46% said it was often or very often undermined by poor access to such services
In an accommodation setting, services spoke about their inability to manage when too many of their
residents have complex needs due, citing staffing levels, shared facilities and occupational health and
42
safety concerns. In one of the focus groups there was a lengthy discussion about staff training and the
impact of this on the capacity of services to manage clients with complex needs. Services at the focus
group were concerned that some staff had limited experience and basic qualifications – yet were
working with vulnerable and chaotic clients. Improved pre-service training, induction and ongoing
professional development could help services to provide more appropriate assistance to clients with
complex needs. The provision of more single-room accommodation with new developments at Lime
Street and the Beacon Project will also provide greater privacy for residents.
A commitment to working more with clients with mental health issues is demonstrated by the work of a
homeless network group hosted by St Bartholomew’s House that involves key homeless service
providers in the inner city. This group worked together to develop a common mental health assessment
form to smooth the intake and referral processes. They also developed the Mental Health Linkages
proposal discussed in Chapter 5 which aims to provide a flexible inreach service along a continuing
care model for residents and potential residents of key inner city Perth accommodation providers (St
Bartholomew’s House, Salvation Army, 55 Central and Foundation). This project has been scoped and
costed, but as yet no funding support has been found. The project would reduce the barriers to
accommodation services for people with mental health problems by ensuring they have appropriate
and mobile support. While there is not a current proposal on the table, services also spoke about how
external support for clients with alcohol and drug issues would also enable them to take on more clients
with complex needs. Appendix 4 includes details of current specialist support available in
accommodation services from visiting services.
In non-residential services, the support of specialist services like MCOT, Mental Health Emergency
Response Line (MHERL) and the mental health nurse attached to the Mobile GP are highly rated.56
Appendix 6 provides details of services that have access to visiting or onsite specialist support. A few
services reported through the online survey how they are successfully implementing arrangements with
specialist service providers to support staff with complex clients including undertaking joint case-work,
providing a consultation service and offering training to staff. For the majority, however, while some
support is available it is insufficient to cover demand and sometimes restricted to clients participating in
programs like Street to Home. As an example, data supplied by UCW show that while Tranby is funded
for up to 80 clients per day, figures from early 2012 have risen from an average of 86 to 140 per day
over nine months. Within this, Tranby estimates between 30-40% have complex needs.
Clients were also concerned about levels of support for people with complex needs. Almost a quarter
of those interviewed were concerned about their own mental health and that of others they saw in
services. They share rooms, centres, showering facilities and breakfast tables with people whose mental
health is poor and often untreated. Some spoke of their own complex mental health problems and
other issues that meant they were excluded from or scared of services – including clients with anxiety or
autism who find new places difficult to manage.
As mentioned in the previous section, when interviewed, management staff at 55 Central indicated
that they would consider adjusting their target group to specialise in homeless people with mental
56 Note: these services also work with accommodation services.
43
health issues. The small size and layout of the service would enable it to have appropriate client load
and privacy for this group. The current manager has experience in this area, has improved staff training
and has arrangements in place for visiting specialist services. Formally specialising the target group
would enable this process to be taken further. They are also contracted by the Mental Health
Commission to deliver psychosocial support to a number of clients residing in 11 properties managed
by 55 Central and intend to expand this over the next year. In considering its funding of inner city
homeless services in Perth and Fremantle, DCP needs to weigh up how best to utilise this service and
whether to prioritise women’s accommodation or a specialist service for people with complex needs. It
may also be worth considering whether it would be possible to deliver a mixed service that takes both
men and women with complex needs. This would provide a supported accommodation option for
homeless women and would relieve pressure on refuge services by asking them to primarily accept
homeless women with less complex needs who may be a less uncomfortable fit within their services. It
would, however, need further investigation to explore whether a mixed service would work for women
with mental health issues, particularly those with a history of trauma. Such a service may also require
some additional resources. It is worth noting that 55 Central need to be commended for their openness
and willingness to talk about changing their target group to fit within the context of the service system
as a whole. They should not, however, be the only service to consider this, and other options can also
be explored.
Those with the most complex needs may be eligible for the People with Exceptionally Complex Needs
(PECN) project, a joint initiative between the Mental Health Commission, Disability Services Commission,
Mental Health Services, Office of the Public Advocate, Department of Corrective Services, Department
of Housing, and the Drug and Alcohol Office. The project assists adults:
Who pose a significant risk of harm to self or others; and
Who require intensive support, would benefit from receiving coordinated services; and
For whom the existing system is not working as well as it should, and who have two or more of
the following support needs:
- a mental illness
- an acquired brain injury
- an intellectual disability; or
- a significant substance use problem
The PECN project coordinates services between all of the partner agencies and other services to
ensure timely and coordinated service delivery. Established in 2009 with a caseload of nine, it has
recently been extended to take 18 people. Discussions with PECN staff indicate that a large proportion
of the participants have a history of homelessness including some who have been restricted from
using inner city homeless services. A key factor in its success has been the mutual learnings from the
increased collaboration between agencies. They also indicate that individualised support and funding,
which has been accessed by some of the participants through the Disability Services Commission and
the Mental Health Commission, has contributed to the capacity of the initiative to deliver and achieve
good outcomes for the participants. While the PECN project is small, there may be key learning in its
model for other service providers. With homeless services identifying significant numbers of clients as
44
having complex needs,57 staff could potentially have a role initiating processes to ensure assessments
and access to funding through mental health and disability services.
Recommendations:
3. That DCP support the Mental Health Linkages project, including following up with this
group about ways such specialist support can be provided to assist hostels to reduce
barriers for people with mental health needs.
4. That DCP support the development of a training program be developed and delivered
for homeless sector staff about the individualised funding and assessment processes
available in the mental health and disability sectors so they are better able to assist
their clients to access specialist services.
(See Recommendation 2 for proposal to change 55 Central’s target group)
Homeless families
Families are sleeping in cars and trying to keep their kids in school – but how do
you do that with a dirty uniform and cold food?
– homeless sector worker
Like women, families who are homeless rather than escaping domestic violence have limited
emergency housing options. While half the women’s refuge services will accept a homeless family if
there is a vacancy, this is usually in limited numbers and on a case by case basis with priority given to
women escaping domestic violence.58 In addition, homeless families may include fathers and others
who would make them inappropriate for refuge accommodation even if it were available. AIHW data
shows families currently constitute 14% of the support periods in inner city services in Perth and
Fremantle.59 As discussed above, the survey of inner city homeless services shows that accommodation
services for families are almost exclusively transitional or medium-term. The online survey also indicates
that service providers find provision for homeless families the most limited of all target groups. Family
emergency accommodation was seen as limited or very limited by 88% of services, with 92% finding
non-emergency accommodation limited or very limited. Given the snapshot of the bedcount figures in
Appendix 7 this is unsurprising. These show that while there was a daily average of 2.7 vacancies at
3:30pm for women with children escaping domestic and family violence, there was only and average
0.2 of a vacancy for a homeless woman with children (ie one vacancy all month). There were none
listed for homeless families with a single father, two parents or any other combination.
57 and documented in the Registry Week data 58 See (Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services (WCDFVS) sector scoping study 59 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11
45
In interviews with key stakeholders, the lack of options for homeless families closely followed women’s
accommodation with about one third of people discussing it. Several agencies reported increasing
numbers of families requesting help. The two DCP offices in Perth and Fremantle were particularly
concerned about homeless families. They reported being approached by families sleeping in cars or
other improvised arrangements, citing their frustration of trying to deal with homelessness when they are
primarily a child protection agency. Both intake and assessment teams confirmed that homelessness
alone was not a child protection issue for families. Interactions data for 2011-12 records family group
type only for those who are offered DCP assistance rather than one-off information or referral. Within
this, however, it shows that families made up 75% of people who Crisis Care, Perth or Fremantle offices
completed an intake with when homelessness was a primary issue.60 DCP staff report having increasing
difficulties even finding emergency placements for people, with limited options in specialist homeless
services and their list of low-cost hotels diminishing due to being full or refusing to take DCP clients. In
one meeting it was suggested that district offices and homeless families would benefit greatly from the
provision of a property that could be used for emergency family accommodation.61 Alternatively such
a resource could be attached to the proposed homeless referral service being developed by DCP.
Within the non-government sector many of the key homeless services do not accept families. Likewise,
comments in interviews indicated that some families may avoid homeless services which do not meet
their needs or provide a safe environment for their children. Day centres, which provide easy access to
basic needs provision and a range of support services, see themselves as unsafe or unsuitable for
people with children. Most accommodation is designed for single people, with the expectation that
families can source private rentals, DoH and other options. As outlined by one service working with this
group, changes in the economic situation, rental market and waiting lists has resulted in increasing
numbers of families experiencing homelessness as a direct result of a lack of supply, lack of affordability
and lack of ability to search out the few available options. This situation is compounded when families
have limited experience of Australian systems. In interviews, online survey responses and focus groups,
homeless families were identified as needing crisis accommodation, access to basic needs support and
assistance to source housing options.
The interest in providing additional services for families is evidenced by two of the proposals currently
being worked on by agencies in the sector – Fremantle’s homeless family crisis accommodation and
UCW’s family day centre.62 Both of these are at the model development stage and will be seeking
funding support once fully developed. The Fremantle service aims to provide crisis accommodation
with advocacy support to families linked to formal agreements with transitional housing providers to
provide exit points. The UCW proposal involves establishing a day centre providing access to basic
needs support including showers, cooking facilities, laundry and an environment where homeless
families can maintain homework and other routines. This service could be provided in the context of
UCW’s existing family support services. A family day centre was identified as a priority at one of the
three focus groups. Given that DCP is currently working on a proposal for a referral and assessment
centre which is in part designed to ease the pressure on district offices, there is an opportunity to
60 From Interactions between July 2011 to June 2012 where homelessness is a primary issue or person issue – Crisis
Care, Fremantle District and Perth District. Supplied by DCP. 61 One staff member at the meeting identified that Cannington had such a property – possibly allocated by DoH 62 See Chapter 5
46
consider including the family day centre within the model. If the DCP proposal is for a centre which
people can attend, it could be collocated with a family day centre using the model proposed by
UCW, thus meeting much more than simply a referral need by supplying basic needs, support services
and a location that would enable a range of services to visit to deliver services to this vulnerable and
difficult to contact group.
Recommendations:
5. That DCP monitor and support the development of the Fremantle family emergency
accommodation model being worked on by the local interagency group.
6. That within DCP’s proposal for a homeless referral and assessment centre there is
consideration of co-locating it with a day centre for homeless families.
7. That DCP approach DoH and request that a house be allocated to each district office
for use as emergency family accommodation, or that such a resource be attached to
the homeless referral service proposal that is being developed.
Homeless young people
I just want a job so I can earn money and not have to sell drugs anymore – I don’t
want to go to jail.
– homeless young person
The services for homeless young people are difficult to assess within the context of an inner city review.
Few of the homeless youth accommodation services are based within the inner city – even when the
sample artificially draws in one service from Victoria Park and one from Spearwood to ensure there is
representation. One peculiarity of the inner city for young people is the Northbridge Policy63 in Perth,
which is not specifically a homeless strategy. It would be more appropriate to undertake a review
specifically of homeless youth services and understand them within the context of the whole youth
homeless sector.64 When considering the mix of youth services, it is worth noting that there are
significant changes already in the service mix. The inner city and youth sector will benefit from the new
Foyer Project that is being developed by Anglicare in Leederville (as detailed in Chapter 5). Youth
services in Perth’s inner city were also recently reorganised as part of a reform to the ongoing response
to young people in the city and the Northbridge Policy. This resulted in Mission Australia expanding its
Inner City Project, which incorporates Youth Beat, Making Tracks and the On-Track projects. Anglicare’s
Street Connect service, which is listed amongst the services in Appendix 5 and 6 had short-term funding
to continue the work of Step 1, but is unlikely to continue.
63 A WA government response to the problem of at-risk children in Northbridge after hours 64 Shelter WA is currently running a series of workshops and preparing a paper on this issue.
47
When considering young people in the inner city, it can be noted that the AIHW data shows 15% of
people using inner city homeless services in Perth and Fremantle are aged under 25 (excluding
accompanying children). The bedcount snapshot from March this year showed an average daily
vacancy rate of 3.6 bedspaces at 3:30pm in the metropolitan area.65 Despite this, the online survey
found three quarters of services felt young people have limited to very limited housing options. Data
from Registry Week supports the need for services, finding 23% of the rough sleepers surveyed were
under 25, with half of them assessed as vulnerable.66 Another example indicating need for youth
services is the 11 young people aged under 18 that presented to Tranby during CHOGM. Two thirds of
them were under 16 and one was only 12 years old.
In client interviews, only 18 people under 20 were included. This reflects the use of mostly adult services
as a source of interviewees – which in turn reflects the emphasis on adult services in the inner city areas
of Perth and Fremantle. Passages Resource Centre was the main exception to this with 13 of the 18
young people interviewed there. The remainder were interviewed at Street Connect. Young people
spoke about the need for youth services that provide food, showers and other basics. This is particularly
the case in Fremantle where there are not facilities like Passages, Mission Australia or Street Connect
where young people can access these.
Age limits and finding age appropriate services was identified as an issue for young people and service
providers. About a third of young people interviewed specifically spoke about feeling unsafe in adult
services and others spoke about how they cannot go to services if they are under age. In key
stakeholder interviews and focus groups workers detailed struggles with age limits for their clients. While
some non-government sector agencies have older age limits of 25, mental health services move young
people into adult services as young as 18. Workers spoke about young people moving into adult
services running the risk of becoming long-term homeless.67 Non-government services also struggle with
supporting young people under the age of 16.
Homeless young people’s interactions with services are also complicated by their age and relationship
to the care system. A third of key stakeholders interviewed spoke about young people absconding
from care or actively avoiding services because they are afraid of being taken into care. Homeless
young people interviewed had little positive to say about the care system. Both government and non-
government workers identified that the care system and DCP was not a particularly “youth friendly”
service. They spoke about issues with exit planning, high staff turnover and limited options. Some DCP
workers consulted said they preferred to refer young people to youth sector services. From a service
system perspective, DCP acknowledges this by funding homeless youth services in recognition that
such services can better meet the particular needs of this group than a generic child protection
service. Crisis Care staff spoke about their responsibility to connect young people to placements, but
found this difficult when young people refused to remain in such placements. Police spoke about
incidents where young people were left in their care overnight because of a lack of response from
65 From bedcount snapshot for March 2012 supplied by DCP 66 According to the Vulnerability Index used – from Perth Registry Week Briefing (2012), Ruah Community Services 67 Finding a youth homeless pathway into adult homelessness as detailed in David MacKenzie and Chris
Chamberlain (2003) “Homeless Careers: Pathways in and out of Homelessness”, Counting the Houseless 2001 Project,
Swinburne and RMIT Universities
48
DCP. As one worker observed, it appears that older young people are not a priority in the care system,
and neither was being in care a priority to these young people. As a consequence they fall through the
gaps into homelessness.
One suggestion for addressing the issue of young people and the care system was to move older
young people in the care of DCP away from mainstream caseworkers to a specialist older youth social
worker team.68 These young people are part of existing caseloads so the proposal would mean simply
concentrating them in the same workers’ caseloads. This worker/team could liaise and work closely
with the non-government services young people use, would prioritise them as the core target group
and develop appropriate strategies for supporting them. Given that workers note that young people in
the inner city tend to have more complex needs and are at risk due to sleeping rough, alcohol and
drug use, the inner city is the most appropriate place for such a project to be established. The
proactive model that DHS Centrelink uses to engage homeless people in its services69 gives an example
of how specialist services within mainstream departments can engage marginal clients. DCP is currently
in the process of fine tuning its response to older young people in care (or who have left care) through
its leaving care services. Each district office is developing a leaving care model, with the Perth office
currently at the stage of establishing and leaving care committee.
Recommendations:
8. That DCP liaise with service providers, City of Fremantle and other interested parties to
attempt to fill the gap for basic needs provision for young people in Fremantle eg
showers, meals – preferably in a drop-in environment.
9. That DCP consider allocating a social worker(s) to specialise in working with older
young people who abscond from care and move between care and homelessness. In
particular this social worker should liaise and work in partnership with inner city youth
services.
Homeless couples
We’ve looked at or applied for 421 places in 16 weeks – I’ve got it all written down here.
Maybe the next one will be the one.
– homeless woman
The final specific group that was identified in the research is homeless couples. The AIHW data found
3.8% of support periods in inner city homeless services in Perth and Fremantle were provided to couples
(ie 229 in the 2010-11 year).70 Data from Registry Week, CHOGM and other sources does not identify if
68 At least two workers would be ideal in this scenario so they have collegiate support 69 See Chapter 6 70 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11
49
people are couples. Provision for couples is very limited. While the online survey of inner city services
found 41 bedspaces for couples, 37 of these were in Jewell House which is simply a low-cost hotel at
$96 per night for a double room. Whilst it is used by DCP, the Patient Assisted Travel Scheme (PATS) and
other homeless clients, it cannot realistically be called a homeless accommodation service. This leaves
3 couples rooms at CROFT and 1 at Perth Asian Community. The People and Animal Welfare Society
(PAWS) may also accept couples. It has 8 beds for either men or women in a nightshelter style service,
but offers no support services.
The issue of accommodation for couples was mentioned by workers in interviews and focus groups, but
not extensively. It was mostly raised by clients as a reason they do not seek help. Those who were part
of a couple said they were faced with the choice of splitting up or remaining street homeless. For some,
this meant regular periods of rough sleeping between periods of respite in separate accommodation
services. This is reflected in the majority of comments about couples actually recorded during interviews
with people in parks, detailed in Chapter 10.
50
Chapter 8: Significant issues
You need a place that makes you happy – you need to have value and be able
to see each other’s value.
– homeless man
As indicated in the introduction to this report opening discussions with clients, service providers and
agencies about inner city homeless services results in a very broad and complex response, particularly
given the interconnected and mobile nature of homelessness. This chapter seeks to highlight the most
commonly discussed and significant issues identified during this process.
Accommodation
I need a house so I know I’m home – I’ve never had a house
- Homeless woman
The previous chapter addresses the accommodation needs of particular target groups, however, it is
the limited number of vacancies in services and the lack of affordable accommodation services in
general were the most commonly raised issues by service providers and clients alike.
Accommodation services
The State Plan71 states that addressing homelessness requires linkages to a range of housing options
and the provision of appropriate support in order to meet the needs of the individual and ensure
sustainable outcomes. While addressing the critical shortage of affordable accommodation in WA is
beyond the scope of this review, the housing provision issue was raised repeatedly during the research.
In light of this, the review has primarily restricted itself to comments about accommodation services.
Inner city accommodation services in Perth and Fremantle are detailed in Appendices 3 and 4. Table 7
shows the length of support periods in accommodation services from the AIHW data.72 This indicates
that the vast majority of residents do not stay in services for more than three months.
Table 7: Length of support period in Perth and Fremantle inner city accommodation services
Length of support period Closed support periods All support periods
Number % Number %
less than 1 day 155 9.6 156 9.5
71 “Opening Doors to Address Homelessness” (2010), Western Australia Homelessness State Plan 2010-2013, WA
Government, Department for Child Protection 72 See AIHW’s Inner City Services Report 2010-11
51
1-3 days 249 15.4 252 15.1
4-7 days 212 13.1 215 12.9
>1-2 weeks 248 15.4 255 15.3
>2-4 weeks 253 15.7 253 15.2
>4-13 weeks 352 21.8 360 21.6
>13-26 weeks 94 5.8 108 6.5
>26-52 weeks 51 3.2 65 3.9
Total 1,614 100 1,664 100
Table 8 shows where those people interviewed in services live. The residents in St Bartholomew’s and
Salvation Army hostels have been listed separately as they represent the majority of the hostel residents,
leaving a more consistent picture of other service-based clients who were met primarily in drop-in
centres. This shows that 13% of people met in non-residential services are living in hostels, with almost a
quarter sleeping rough and 40% having their own place.
Table 8: Where clients interviewed in services currently live
Where people live Service-based
Hostel
residents
Total %
Freo. % Perth % No. %
Sleeping out 6 21% 12 24% 0 0% 18 18%
Temporary housing
(eg hostel, refuge)
4 14% 6 12% 19 100% 29 30%
Friends/family 6 21% 9 18% 0 0% 15 15%
Own place 12 41% 19 38% 0 0% 31 32%
Unknown 1 3% 4 8% 0 0% 5 5%
Total 29 100% 50 100% 19 100% 98 100%
Clients spoke about their experiences in housing and the need for a range of housing options. Their
concerns included:
Lack of nightshelter style options
Lack of vacancies in hostels
Cost of so-called “low cost” housing (eg private lodging and hotels)
Reliance on “flop house” style substandard housing with no secure tenure that is often unsafe,
violent and discriminates against Aboriginal people
Some residents staying in hostels for too long (several years in some cases)
Workers and key stakeholders primarily discussed the lack of provision and available vacancies. Several
indicated a need for some “messier” housing models that could be used as a first step into
52
accommodation, particularly as there was an increasing focus on engagement with support as a
condition of housing.73 Such service provision would be in keeping with addressing the needs of clients
who are “stuck” under the Outcomes Star model. One of the focus groups identified a crashpad
service with low rules and expectations as its second highest priority. The acute homeless shelter being
developed by Vincentcare will address the need for respite and critical care, but will not be open-
access nightshelter provision. A model used in the UK where the construction industry assists with
identifying and fitting out empty buildings for winter shelter provision may be a more viable alternative
to address the need for shelter in the worst weather conditions. Other more lateral options discussed in
focus groups include Nightstop services which provide overnight accommodation for newly homeless
young people in family homes74 and programs that encourage people to utilise space in holiday
homes, timeshare with FIFO workers75 and make better use of underutilised upper floors in buildings in
the City of Perth.76
Three quarters of key stakeholders interviewed spoke about the need for exit points and the pressure
the lack of long-term housing puts on homeless services. In response to this, a third of those interviewed
discussed adopting a Housing First approach for people who have chronic and complex needs that
can’t be dealt with without stable accommodation and wrap-around support. Housing First argues that
to solve homelessness the provision of stable housing is the first step. Remaining homeless or in crisis
services exacerbates chronic health, mental health, drug, alcohol and other issues that contribute to
homelessness. Housing First supports the rapid connection of people to services that sustain their
tenancy and provide specialist support. Providing housing is the first step and it is not conditional on
accepting support. Once housed, people have better opportunities to connect with the services they
need to resolve issues, improve their general health and wellbeing, and reconnect to family and
community.77 Whilst housing provision may sound like a costly option, the consequences of not housing
people with chronic health, mental health and substance abuse issues is expensive health, housing and
justice services (eg hospital admissions, emergency departments, hostels and prison). A long-term study
and economic analysis of a Housing First program in the US found that while people still used services,
the tendency to more low-cost community-based provision meant that even with the cost of Housing
First buildings and support included, a saving of $9,423 per person per year was made.78 Establishing a
purpose built Common Ground project79 was the top priority identified by one of the focus groups.
Providing a range of affordable housing options is however beyond the capacity of both this review
and DCP. As indicated in the focus groups, the separation of responsibility for specialist homeless
services and provision of housing in the WA government department structure divides two intrinsically
intertwined areas. Housing First and other solutions all rely on an adequate supply of housing.
73 See later section on bans and exclusions for client feedback about why they avoid existing hostels 74 Such schemes are running in the UK 75 Possibly on a housesitting model 76 While unrelated to homelessness, the City of Perth has undertaken an upper floors reactivation feasibility study in
2010 (see www.perth.wa.gov.au) 77 See Suraya Naidoo (2008) “Social Inclusion at Work: The South Australian Social Inclusion Approach to Ending
Homelessness”, Parity April 2008 78 See “Home and Health for Good – Permanent Supportive Housing: A Solution Driven Model” (2012), Massachusetts
Housing and Shelter Alliance, Boston. 79 A model based on Housing First
53
Follow-up support
Once housed, follow-up support is critical. About 40% of people met in day centres had their own
accommodation but were still frequently using drop-in services for support. The table below shows
whether people were secure where they were living. Within this 74% of those who had their own place
felt it was safe and stable. For others, disputes with neighbours, threat of eviction and substandard
accommodation were the main concerns. In interviews, clients said they would like the following types
of support:
Help to maintain tenancies – especially for people who have been long-term homeless, eg
avoiding eviction, dealing with substandard housing, managing maintenance issues80
Help sorting out neighbour disputes – people reported issues with neighbours including trouble
with people dealing drugs, violence and begging that they couldn’t manage with either the
police or DoH. Since they were considered “adequately housed”, they were not eligible for
most available help.
Help to manage financially – eg budgeting, emergency relief
Information about services and facilities in their local area
Table 9: Clients interviewed in services – whether they feel safe and secure where they lived
Felt safe and stable
where they lived
Fremantle service-
based
Perth service-based Total %
No. % No. %
Sleeping out 1 (6) 17% 1 (12) 8% 2 11%
Temporary housing
(eg hostel, refuge)
4 (4) 100% 22 (25) 88% 26 90%
Friends/family 3 (6) 50% 5 (9) 55% 8 53%
Own place 10 (12) 83% 13 (19) 68% 23 74%
Total 18 (29) 62% 41 (69) 59% 59 60%
Numbers in brackets indicate total number of people interviewed.
Service providers also identified the need for long-term support to maintain housing and ensure clients
are connected into their local communities. The provision of such services would be in keeping with the
later stages of the Outcomes Star model. In the online survey, a few services report successfully using
strategies including employing an outreach worker to provide follow-up, developing exit plans for
clients from the beginning of their stay and involving other services in provision of follow-up support.
Service providers identified that follow-up support services and tenancy support programs tend to be
time limited. Using the Outcomes Star concept, the length of such services should be based on clients’
progression on the ladder of change and the outcomes they achieve. Given the focus of this review on
inner city Perth and Fremantle homeless services, tenancy support programs and other follow-up
programs have not been considered in the research. The work of these will be in part addressed as part
of the NPAH evaluation.
80 Some of this style of assistance is available through NPAH services such as the public and private tenancy support
services which are beyond the scope of this review
54
Recommendations:
10. That partnerships be developed for the provision of a winter shelter style service with
private sector support.
11. That DCP explore options with DoH and other relevant departments for adopting
Housing First approaches to address the needs of chronic and long-term homeless
people.
Basic needs
My friend had a cupboard full of food – I’d never seen that before.
– homeless young person
As previously indicated, some basic needs services are better provided than others in Perth and
Fremantle inner city homeless services. In the online survey 20% described basic needs provision as
limited or very limited. No-one identified that there was over-provision. Appendix 5 details what is
available. Areas of need identified by both clients and workers were:
Food: While few people said they were likely to go hungry because food services were
available, there was sometimes a lack of variety, healthier options or vegetarian food. This issue
was raised more often in Fremantle where there is more reliance on the soup van, while in Perth
additional food provision is offered by services like Manna. Self-catering in both
accommodation and day centres (like Passages) could also help with this. Red Cross has a
version of its FoodCents81 program which is designed to be run in parks around BBQs. This
program has been run interstate, with Red Cross running their other FoodCents programs run in
WA. They would like to extend their service to include the park-based program which is
particularly suited to homeless people.
Storage: As previously discussed, storage is not available in any of Perth’s or Fremantle’s inner-
city homeless services (except to some case-managed clients as part of their action
planning82). Several clients spoke about how blankets, clothes, swags and other items that are
handed out by services were often lost, stolen or confiscated. People also lost critical
documentation and personal items. The Order of St John (OSJ), which fundraises for swags for
homeless people in Perth, is currently investigating options for funding and providing storage
facilities.
Laundry: The other basic needs service that some homeless people requested was laundry
facilities. Being able to wash clothes would help people improve their hygiene and also keep
81 Workshops designed to teach healthy cooking on a budget for people on low incomes. 82 Through Ruah Street to Home
55
belongings for longer (one person spoke about simply wearing clothes and then throwing them
out). Since the closure of Genesis,83 laundry services have only been available in Passages
which is exclusively for young people.84
Day centres are also an important provider of basic needs. These are highly valued by the clients
interviewed because of their open access and provision of services without needing appointments.
Many clients met in day centres talked about using them to meet friends and family. As such they
provide a critical response to social isolation. This environment means they can be used as sites to draw
people into services. Their use of visiting services means the engagement capacity of day centres is
shared with the range of services that offer sessions. Those interviewed also identified that clients can
continue to use day centres regularly without the time restrictions and formal support packages of
other programs. All day centres are, however, under pressure from increasing numbers of clients. As an
example, UCW supplied figures from Tranby which shows that, while it is funded for up to 80 clients per
day, data from early 2012 shows the number of individuals accessing services has risen from an
average of 86 to 140 per day over nine months. Extension of the hours of such services was a key
suggestion of both clients and stakeholders. Clients felt frustrated by how early some centres shut. In
Perth both centres are shut by 1pm, while in Fremantle St Patrick’s is open till later in the afternoon and
provides a weekend service. Provision of a 24 hour drop-in service was voted the highest priority in one
of the focus groups. As already mentioned in the section relating to young people in Chapter 7, there is
also a gap in provision for such services in Fremantle for this age group.
Recommendations:
12. That options for providing storage facilities for homeless people be explored with the
Order of St John (OSJ).
13. That Australian Red Cross be supported to run a trial of FoodCents in the park.
14. That DCP support an appropriate agency to review the nutrition options available to
homeless people. This could be done in partnership with students from a relevant
university.
15. That DCP, in collaboration with City of Perth and City of Fremantle, establish a role to
assist organisations and charity groups providing food for homeless people to do so in
a coordinated manner.
83 A day centre in Perth that was run by Salvation Army until mid-2011 84 As shown in Appendix 5, the only other service which offers laundry is St Bartholomew’s Street to Home service
which accesses facilities at its hostel for case managed clients.
56
Health
They accused me of being a druggie because I was twitching – but it was actually from my
brain injury
– homeless man
Health was another significant area identified in the research, with the online survey showing over a
third of services find health provision limited or very limited. Homeless services in the inner city play an
important role in the provision of health services. The Mobile GP and Street Doctor services provide
outreach and visiting support to day centres, homeless services and city locations. Health services are
an attraction for clients to use day centres, and day centres help draw in non-compliant health clients
who will only see a doctor in this familiar environment. St Patrick’s also supplements with a Hands on
Health program which provides a range of ancillary health services from volunteer practitioners.
The Mobile GP identifies that homelessness is a significant contributing factor to the health issues of his
patients. The extent of this can be demonstrated by information from Registry Week. It utilises a
Vulnerability Index which identifies the health factors that can significantly increase the mortality rate
for people if they are homeless. Table 10 shows the prevalence of these factors in people surveyed in
Perth.
Table 10: Risk indicators recorded in the Registry Week Vulnerability Index
Risk Indicator No. people %
Total surveyed 158
Frostbite/immersion foot 22 14%
HIV-AIDS cases 4 3%
Kidney cases 15 9%
Liver cases 21 13%
3 or more emergency department in 3 months 33 21%
3 or more emergency department or hospital inpatient in 1 year 47 30%
Tri-morbid (mental health, substance use and medical problem) 55 35%
Brain injury 52 33%
There is very high demand for the Mobile GP and Street Doctor which would benefit from additional
doctors. The Mobile GP would also like to develop a walking clinic to provide additional support for
people in parks. Provision of health care to homeless people through services such as the Mobile GP
and Street Doctor is cost effective given homeless people tend not to use mainstream GP health
57
services85 and are much more likely to use expensive acute health care. Figures from Registry Week
showed that:
73 people reported 278 hospital emergency department presentations at a cost of $156,514 for
the past three months86
81 people had 260 inpatient hospital admissions in the past year at a cost of $1.48 million per
year
With health and well-being identified as one of four key action areas in the State Homelessness Plan,
there is clearly a role for DCP to liaise with other relevant government departments and advocate for
the provision of cost-effective homeless health services and a better integration between the homeless
and health sectors.
Recommendation:
16. That DCP continue to support specialist homeless health services like the Mobile GP
and Street Doctor, including supporting any moves to increase the capacity of these
services.
Service restrictions and bans
When things go wrong you’re not allowed to be angry – if you swear and shout you could get
thrown off the program.
– homeless man
One area which was explored in the online survey, but also raised in consultation with services and
clients, is the restrictions and bans used by services. This is an interesting area to explore as it is an
indication of why some people do not seek help. As already detailed in Chapter 7’s discussion on
people with complex needs, while only a limited number of services exclude people automatically for
mental health, drug or alcohol issues (unless they are intoxicated at the time), about half limit access in
some form (whether by numbers, access to external support or on a case by case basis). In
accommodation services alone, this rises to two thirds with restrictions on people with current drug and
alcohol issues and three quarters with restrictions on people with severe and enduring mental health
issues. Other reasons service staff gave for refusing access to their service included history of violence,
potential conflict with existing clients,87 staff shortages, lack of disability access, lack of income, recent
85 In a survey of Perth day centre clients only 17% said they would see their own GP if they were unwell – see Leah
Watkins (2011) “Could drop-in centre be the new word for ward round? The future development of the Ruah
Centre”, Ruah Community Services 86 Costs taken from Perth Registry Week Briefing which used figures supplied by Metropolitan Health Services Annual
Report 2010-11 87 Varying from inability to get along with other residents to family feuding
58
history of self-harm and lack of engagement with the program. Four services described restrictive
practices which they used as strategies to reduce pressure on their service including strict limits on
length of stay, tightening their criteria, limiting numbers of people in the service at any given time88 and
requiring complex clients to have external support. While the last of these could be a useful strategy to
increase the support levels available to people with mental health, drug or alcohol issues, it could also
be used to exclude people with complex needs.
The online survey found that 64% of services issue bans on particular individuals. This rises to 70% when
accommodation services only are considered. Reasons given for banning include:
Violent, abusive or threatening behaviour
Selling or using illicit substances
Anti-social behaviour
Damage to premises
Over-use of the service – ie repeated requests for emergency accommodation without
evidence of trying to resolve ongoing issues
Prior debt to the organisation
Details provided about the duration of such bans vary enormously between services. For example,
threatening behaviour can result in one service asking you to leave for the day, when another service
issues a six-month ban. Three services reported giving clients permanent bans and a further eight
services reported giving bans of three months to two years. In contrast four services said bans tended to
be for a day or two, or in the spirit of “take a walk and come back later when you’ve calmed down”.
Other services reported only one or two bans for very extreme cases throughout their history. For
workers with clients who have lengthy bans from other services, this can be frustrating. In particular,
youth workers highlight that long bans for young people show little understanding of the likelihood of
change or growth given their stage of development.
Clients were also concerned about the length, inconsistency and reasons for bans, particularly when it
restricted access to the only local service of its kind. While people understood banning for violent and
abusive behaviour, they were concerned about the length of such bans and the definitions of such
behaviour.
Bans were not the only reason people avoided homeless services. The oft-quoted myth that people
choose to be homeless is a misunderstanding built around some people choosing not to be in homeless
services. Only one person spoken to who was sleeping rough did not want to be housed, and it was
clear that this was due to paranoia about being indoors related to their poor mental health. In contrast,
21 people detailed either being frustrated with or avoiding accommodation services because of the
rules and restrictions in hostels including:
Curfews which hinders people developing a social life as they have difficulty participating in
evening activities
88 This strategy is used by an open-access service, not an accommodation service as it might be assumed.
59
Not being allowed visitors or to stay out late so becoming isolated from family
Shared rooms, sometimes with others who put clients or their belongings at risk, particularly as
room allocations are on the basis of length of stay rather than need89
No alcohol, even low/moderate drinking
Not being able to take pets
Having to be out during the day
Lengthy and time consuming assessments
Institutional environment and judgemental attitudes
Impact on mental health because of lack of privacy and quiet
Not being allowed methadone as it was seen as drug use not medication
Time restrictions on both length of stay and when clients are permitted to reuse a service
The earlier section in this chapter on accommodation highlights the need for accommodation styles
that would suit people in the “stuck” stage described in the Outcomes Star, including low rules hostels
and winter shelter models. Examination of how services limit access or restrict client independence
could produce interesting ideas for models that would be more attractive to clients across all stages of
the ladder of change.
Recommendation:
17. That an action research project90 be undertaken to work with hostels to investigate the
extent to which their rules unnecessarily exclude or discourage clients.
Employment, education and training
I lost my last job because I couldn’t get a shower for four days – I couldn’t turn up
for work like that
– homeless man sleeping rough
The State Plan identifies employment, education and training as a key action area for assisting people
to move on after homelessness and build both connections to the community and a stable economic
future.91 The most stable route out of homelessness is one that also addresses poverty. Employment
directly combats poverty by providing a secure income and active participation in mainstream society.
A third of the 98 homeless people interviewed in services also spoke about work, training or some form
of occupation as an important route out support services and poverty.
89 New developments at Lime Street and the Beacon Project will help address this by providing single room
accommodation 90 Action research has been recommended as this model will enable hostel staff to be directly involved in research
and will value their experience and knowledge. 91 “Opening Doors to Address Homelessness” (2010), Western Australia Homelessness State Plan 2010-2013, WA
Government, Department of Child Protection
60
In interviews with clients, people spoke about the benefits of education and training, both in terms of
skill development and building self-esteem. The range of options people suggested varied from one-
day courses, which allow for homeless people’s transience, to full apprenticeships. Some people talked
about barriers to work including time required for house hunting when homeless, covering the cost of
clothing and travel before being paid, the DHS Centrelink poverty trap, and their poor work history due
to alcohol use. Others, however, saw it as achievable with some support – including eight people who
talked about their experience and qualifications, and two who were already working. Practical
assistance was suggested for people sleeping rough such as access to showers for work. One person
prioritised access to a shower at the end of the day ahead of getting somewhere to stay. He felt that if
he could have evening showers while sleeping rough he could get work and this would enable him to
get a place to live. Others suggested linking support to get work and access training to meeting other
needs. This could include housing models like the Foyer, doing work as in-kind payment for rent, and
working for community service to clear fines (and addressing critical debt issues).
Clients raised concerns that both homeless and employment services offered less assistance to
homeless clients in this area because it was assumed they were not interested or ready. Over a third of
clients who discussed employment, education and training wanted better support from either JSAs or
equivalent organisations. They wanted a connection between homeless services and JSAs. A homeless
employment service could undertake confidence building work, mentoring, brokerage (for licences,
clothing and transport) and have an understanding of issues like sleep and access to showers. People’s
current experience of JSAs was mainly of being left to their own devices and having requests for
brokerage knocked back. Others are not eligible for JSA support, despite wanting assistance with
employment and training, eg people on Disability Support Pension (DSP) or work visas.
In the survey of homeless services in the inner city, 34% of non-residential services and 64% of
accommodation services indicate that they offer support with education, employment and training.92
Observations and comments from both clients and staff, however, suggest that for some services this
can often be in an ad hoc fashion rather than in a strategic and structured way. Stakeholders who did
discuss the issue agreed that both employment and homeless agencies have low expectations of
clients in this area. Those who work in this area spoke about how JSAs do not work well with homeless
clients who often move between geographical boundaries and need consideration of the particular
issues they face to utilise Employment Pathway Funds and Plans. The categorisation of homeless clients
as stream 4 job seekers has not prevented most clients experiencing very low levels of support. Ideally
this could be addressed by having a JSA or specialist homeless employment agency. If based on the
DHS Centrelink community engagement model (detailed in Chapter 6) this could provide visiting
services to day centres, hostels and other homeless services. Such services could proactively engage
people in employment, education and training in the context of a specialist understanding that
addresses issues faced by homeless people and does not fall into the trap of having low expectations
for them.
The other service example uncovered the research is Salvation Army’s BP House, which is run in
partnership with BP Australia. The project head-leases a property, provides a lead tenant and a
92 See Appendices 4 and 6
61
Salvation Army caseworker. BP provides work for tenants with rent paid directly out of wages and
underwritten by BP as security. Other private sector support is provided through Radio Rentals who fit
out the property. Salvation Army has one project in Perth, 12 Australia-wide, and is keen to expand the
program.
Recommendations:
18. That collaboration with other government departments and agencies in the sector be
sought to establish a specialist homeless employment service that would be able to
offer a visiting support service within homeless agencies. This could be done through
either:
Tasking a single JSA in the metropolitan area with this role
Establishing a specialist team along similar lines as DHS Centrelink’s community
engagement team
Seeking employment and training sector funding to establish a specialist
service.
19. That Salvation Army’s BP House model be documented with the view to providing a
best practice example that could be duplicated.
Exiting homeless services
I have a place, but it’s hard to make friends. I don’t know what to say – do I lie or tell them I
was homeless and have them make assumptions about me … so I keep coming back here.
– day centre user
Outside formal employment and training, clients talked generally about recreation, community
involvement or other activities that valued their worth and built self-esteem. The State Plan93 talks
about connection with community, family and friends as one of the four key action areas. This
connection can build resilience and a support network for people and prevent the continuing cycle of
homelessness. The plan states that “it is important for services to actively support people to participate
in their community and reconnect with family and friends where possible”. As Tim Muirhead discussed in
his closing address to the Specialist Homeless Services Conference held in Perth earlier this year, the
homeless sector has a tendency to deal with the individual and society (ie clients and services), and
leave out aspects of life related to family and community.94 This was also observed throughout the
research, with several clients illustrating the point by discussing individuals they knew who had been
attending services or staying in hostels for many years. While the sector is working to exit people from
93 “Opening Doors to Address Homelessness” (2010), Western Australia Homelessness State Plan 2010-2013, WA
Government, Department of Child Protection 94 See www.dcp.wa.gov.au/servicescommunity/Documents/Conference2012
62
homelessness to affordable housing, there is less work being done towards exiting people from
homeless services and homeless culture.
When asked about what it would take for them not to need support services any more, clients using
inner city homeless services talked about work and training, as discussed in the previous section. They
also talked about connecting with activities and community events to build a bridge out of services
and back into society. They talked about recreation, music and having friends outside homeless
services. In the online survey 48% of services indicated there was limited or very limited provision to
meet people’s needs for recreation and well-being, with 53% finding limited or very limited provision for
reconnection with family, friends and community. Given the workload in agencies to access limited
accommodation resources and deal with clients with complex needs, work to connect people to
community activities and take a community development approach often becomes low priority.
However, it is needed to create a sustainable pathway out of homelessness and to ensure people
move through the higher stages in the ladder of change. The Outcomes Star model (detailed in
Appendix 8) demonstrates that different types of support services are needed for this work providing
floating support, user-led groups and connection to opportunities. To ensure such work does not create
ghettos of specialist homeless recreation activities (which, while supportive, isolate people and retain
them within homeless services and culture) it needs to be undertaken on an individual level.
Recommendation:
20. That DCP support a project to signpost community activities and groups that can
connect homeless people back to family, friends and community, particularly on an
individual basis.
63
Chapter 9: Service integration
You need hope, structure, something to get your teeth into.
– homeless man
The other key task of this review is to examine opportunities and issues related to service integration. The
national agenda on homelessness cites service integration as critical to improving and expanding
services.95 Specialist homeless services need to work together to create smoother and more sustainable
pathways out of homelessness. They are not, however, expected to deliver the entire homeless
response and need to work effectively with mainstream and other services.
Coordination mechanisms
So many wasted skills – people have knowledge and ability and it’s not tapped into.
– homeless woman
At the broadest level, service integration can be examined by considering what collaboration
mechanisms are available within the sector. In response to the national agenda on homelessness, WA
produced a State Homelessness Plan. From this, consultation was conducted at a regional level with
regional homelessness plans set up to prioritise and focus work in local areas. In Fremantle, the regional
plan has brought about the establishment of an interagency group which brings together both
government and non-government services to work on priorities, and has been responsible for work like
the development of the crisis accommodation model for homeless families. In other regional centres,
services report that interagency groups set up around the regional planning process have become a
focus for collaborative work.96 In inner city Perth, however, several of the key stakeholders interviewed
or consulted in focus groups were not aware of the regional plan for their area. The Perth regional plan
was adapted from work undertaken by the People in Parks Working Group. The priorities within this may
be equally valid and large numbers of inner city service providers did participate in the process.
However, it is a missed opportunity to draw together players in inner city Perth.97 This is important, with
research on service linkages in WA98 finding that agencies and workers who report having good
networks that are a valuable part of their work tend to work in outer metropolitan and regional centres.
In contrast inner city Perth services were much more likely to report that while they understood the
value of good service linkages, they needed better coordination and networking opportunities.
95 As detailed in Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008) “The Road
Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness”, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra 96 As observed by the researcher during visits to regional centres as part of another homeless sector project. 97 Observation in two meetings of the People in Parks Working Group also indicates in may have resulted in confusion
about the purpose of this group 98 See Leah Watkins and Jo Pritchard (2011), “The Art and Science of Service Linkages”, Ruah Community Services,
Perth
64
Comments from stakeholders suggest that collaboration within inner city Perth is complicated by the
lack of identity as a regional centre and the concentration of organisational head offices in the area.
These make it more difficult for services in the area to see themselves as a group, keep to geographical
boundaries and to work together at a service delivery level. Two other interagency meetings in Perth
were attended as part of this review. DHS Centrelink’s Homeless Reference Group appears to be very
well attended across the sector. A Homeless Network hosted by St Bartholomew’s House has bought
together homeless providers (mostly in inner city Perth) and has assisted them to work together on
collaborative projects around mental health and other issues. Those who spoke highly of these groups
identified a strong lead agency99 as a contributing factor to the success of both these and the
Fremantle interagency group.
Within interviews, almost a quarter of respondents discussed the issue of a peak body for the homeless
sector. It was also raised in feedback provided in the online survey. Both Shelter WA and the
Community Housing Coalition of WA (CHCWA) have broader roles than homelessness, though both
have varied levels of interest in the area and undertake work with the sector. Shelter and CHCWA
received DoH funding and their roles are currently under review. Both focus groups in Fremantle and
Perth agreed that public awareness campaigns are one of their priority strategies to draw support and
resources to homeless services. A peak body could act as a focal point for such campaigns and take a
lead in developing more creative strategies that go beyond daily service delivery. Peak bodies have a
critical role as cross-pollinators who are able to facilitate collaboration and participation in service
integration activities.100
Recommendations:
21. That DCP take the opportunity to improve collaboration and draw inner city Perth
services into the process of implementing the regional plan for their area by forming a
regional interagency group for this purpose rather than using the People in Parks
Working Group.
22. That DCP follow the outcomes of DoH’s review into the role of housing peaks and
consider what further role these or other groups may have as a homeless sector peak
body.
99 ie DHS Centrelink, the Fremantle DCP office who resources their regional interagency meeting and the paid
facilitation which is funded for the Homeless Network group under the Lotterywest grant for St Bartholomew’s House
refurbishment (as a mechanism to help utilise the new premises for increased collaborative work) 100 See Leah Watkins and Jo Pritchard (2011), “The Art and Science of Service Linkages”, Ruah Community Services,
Perth
65
Referral pathways
I don’t know what it would take – I’m not sure if I’ll ever not be homeless
– homeless man
The referral pathways and how homeless people access services is one of the key themes identified in
feedback from the online survey. Poor quality referrals resulting in people being sent to inappropriate
services with high expectations were identified. This was elaborated on in interviews with key
stakeholders and meetings with key referral agencies, who identified how misinformation about what
Crisis Care, DoH’s Homeless Advisory Service and DCP district offices are able to provide causes referral
loops with clients being sent between these and non-government agencies in hope of finding
assistance.101
The Homeless Advisory Service staff that attended the focus group identified that issues with access to
information and staff training can inhibit their capacity to provide quality referrals to homeless people.
As the service is delivered as part of DoH’s Housing Direct line, they face the broad and somewhat
daunting task of responding to calls from existing DoH tenants about maintenance, antisocial
behaviour complaints, current applicant queries, and requests for assistance for immediate
homelessness. The role of providing assistance and advice to homeless people may be better served if
DoH and DCP were to collaborate and provide a single service rather than sending clients in referral
loops between their various helplines.
Throughout the research process, the following models were suggested as ways of creating smoother
referral pathways:
Triage service: Focus groups discussed a triage service that ensures all people who request help
receive an assessment and referral. One group listed a triage housing worker in district offices
and mandatory interagency planning among its priorities. This could be incorporated in the
intake and assessment centre model DCP has begun the process of developing (detailed in
Chapter 5).
Common assessment tools: Some key stakeholders interviewed proposed a model of common
assessment tools which would enable all homeless sector agencies to triage clients and utilise
assessment information collected by each other. The work to develop a common mental
health assessment form by inner city agencies is a good example of this practice.102 Other work
has been done along these lines with the Street to Home and other NPAH services. The other
focus group prioritised establishing a local coordinator to specifically develop common
practices, forms and referral process.
101 All these agencies – Crisis Care, DCP offices and DoH’s Homeless Advisory Service – report receiving referrals from
each other, despite being able to do little more for homeless people than refer them on again 102 Undertaken by key inner city agencies involved in the Homeless Network hosted by St Bartholomew’s House
66
Information and training: One focus group identified information provision as its joint highest
priority. This would increase the capacity of all services to make good quality referrals.103
Training and supervision specifically for Homeless Advisory Service staff was also amongst its
priorities.
Selection of appropriate strategies needs to consider the “no wrong door” concept as detailed in the
federal government’s white paper on homelessness.104 This concept identifies that homeless and at risk
people present to a wide variety of services and agencies when requesting assistance, and that
addressing homelessness is the responsibility of all services and mainstream agencies. As such,
strategies should empower services across the sector and in non-homeless agencies to be able to
contribute by making appropriate and informed referrals. Triage and assessment services need to be
developed alongside other suggested strategies like common assessment tools and information
provision to ensure that they don’t become an “only one door” response.
Recommendations:
23. That DoH and DCP collaborate to close referral loops for homeless people between
their helpline services to ensure information is provided at the first point of call and not
referred on. This could include day releases of staff between Crisis Care and the
Homeless Advisory Service. DoH may also be interested in supporting the development
for DCP’s assessment centre proposal to enable it to deal with homeless related
queries that would otherwise be sent to the Homeless Advisory Service.
24. That DCP’s assessment centre proposal be developed alongside other strategies
including:
Work with interagency forums to develop further common assessment tools
and practices
Training and “show and tell” style events that improve knowledge of referral
pathways across the sector.
103 Information provision is dealt with in further detail in the following section. 104 Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008) “The Road Home: A National
Approach to Reducing Homelessness”, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra
67
Information provision
I just go where I’m sent – there’s no choice in the matter.
– homeless man
As indicated above, good information provision is a key strategy to building smooth referral pathways.
Detailed and up to date information ensures that anyone working with homeless people is able to
access and refer directly to a wide range of service providers. A third of those who completed the
online survey reported that out of date or poor service information rarely or never undermines their work
with homeless people. The Perth Homeless Response Workshop which formed the basis of the regional
homeless plan for the area105 includes the development of a directory as one of its priority strategies.
Reflecting this, the highest priority identified by the Perth focus group was for a directory or “wiki” for
workers, clients and the public to be able to quickly find detailed information about what is available.
In response to the regional plan, DCP recently published a directory of services which is available
through its website.106 At present, this directory does not include non-DCP funded services – a key
criticism listed by respondents to the online survey of both previous directories and the vacancy
bedcount. The DCP directory also needs further work to make it more user-friendly. It needs to resolve
issues around searching for metropolitan-wide services and develop service types that are meaningful
rather than based on funding streams. Such information provision also requires processes for regular
updating. The City of Perth also provides a useful information source through its “Homeless Services in
the Inner City” brochure. This provides a basic guide to services available and while it does not have
detailed information necessary for making referrals, its size is manageable for clients and it is an
excellent starting point for agencies. Two agencies also reported that they produce their own
directories in an attempt to have useful information sources. While admirable, such work would be an
unnecessary duplication if there were a single good, quality directory service. Other suggestions put
forward during the review to improve information provision include:
Protocols: Development of protocols and procedures applicable to a wide range of services
about how to direct homeless people to appropriate assistance. An example of this is the
Melbourne CBD homeless health access protocol.107 The City of Perth’s “Homeless Services in
the Inner City” brochure does include a protocol for homeless people in public places, but this
has not been endorsed by other groups.
Pathway diagrams: A more informal version of the protocols would be to include a “what if”
aspect to the directory to help readers search for and identify the right resources.
Bedcounts: Both the accuracy and the circulation of the current bedcount system was
questioned by those who took part in the review. Focus group and online survey participants
105 See Perth Metropolitan Homeless Response Workshop: Final Report, September 2011 106 See www.dcp.wa.gov.au/servicescommunity/Pages/Services%20by%20type.aspx 107 See Maureen Dawson-Smith, Christine Greenhatch and Veronica Perera “Guide to Accessing Services – CBD
Homelessness Health Access Protocols” (2010) CBD Health and Homelessness Steering Group, Moonee Valley
Melbourne Primary Health Care, City of Melbourne
68
suggested that bedcount data should be more widely available to homeless services. This
would eliminate an unnecessary step in finding the right referral and act as mechanism for
encouraging people to keep it up to date. It was also suggested that the system needed to
incorporate non-DCP funded services in order to be more useful.
Client information: A small group of homeless people surveyed complained about information
brochures being out of date and said they learnt more about services from other homeless
people. One conversation lead to a discussion about having a regular, client-run information
sheet. Workers also identified the need for information designed for clients to be packaged
differently to a directory intended for service staff.
Collaboration tools: Information provision could also extend to tools that would assist in building
service linkages, like a clearing house for collaboration opportunities and a sector drop-box for
sharing information. Such tools would need to be managed by an appropriate group –
another role for a homeless sector peak.
Recommendations:
25. That DCP expand its directory project to:
include non-DCP funded services that regularly work with homeless people
further develop the search features and categorisation of service types
incorporate a “what if” style matrix to assist those less familiar with the sector to
navigate to appropriate services
produce a version suitable for clients – possibly in collaboration with the City of
Perth’s brochure
make provisions for regular cycles to update information
develop an app version of the directory to make it more accessible
(particularly for mobile workers).
26. That the vacancy bedcount be made more widely available to homeless sector
agencies.108
Working with individual clients
Don’t you people ever talk to each other? How come nobody knows what I’m up to?
– homeless man
The review also identified a need for service integration at the level of individual clients. In interviews,
clients spoke about the need for dedicated caseworkers who were qualified and had sufficient time to
108 But not to the public or non-homeless services
69
sort out a range of issues, negotiate bureaucratic systems (like DoH) and do active referrals. Along
these lines, another key theme identified in client feedback was a desire for communication between
agencies about individuals to ensure follow-up and prevent duplication. Some clients were known to
have multiple case-workers and would prefer a single case manager, who they could choose, who
coordinates across agencies. 109 Some clients expressed frustration that agencies didn’t talk to each
other more about the work they were doing for them.
When focus groups discussed instances where the inner city services worked particularly well for
homeless clients, key features of this success included good communication, follow-up, information
sharing, and dual case management. The focus group advocated strongly for services to accept
responsibility of case management rather than just making referrals. To do this, the following strategies
were suggested:
Joint case conferencing and information sharing between services about individual clients
Local mechanisms of coordination for sharing cases
Using information systems that record client referrals and basic assessment information which
enable other agencies to follow through on such work
Some projects are already using information exchange between services to provide a more
coordinated approach. Street to Home use an Infoxchange and Peel has an extranet system. Both
release information to other agencies and use a common system to record and exchange this data. St
Bartholomew’s A Good Life project will also be using techniques to share information about clients
between agencies and develop collaborative work practices. The project will work with long-term
homeless people and provide intensive case management. Other organisations will be involved in case
conferences and client permission will be sought to access their records held with other organisations
that assist them (both past and present).
Recommendations:
27. That local interagency groups develop protocols and mechanisms for sharing
information about individual clients who use multiple agencies.110
28. That DCP consider Street to Home’s Infoxchange system, Peel’s extranet program and
the progress of the A Good Life project to see what lessons they provide about sharing
information about individual clients between services.
109 A recent visit to Broome found a system like this that was facilitated through their interagency meetings 110 Similar work has been done in the past with the youth sector.
70
Mainstream services
DoH may as well change its name to the Lotteries Commission and if your number
comes up you get a house.
– homeless man
Interactions with mainstream services like DCP, DoH, hospitals, immigration services and JSAs can be
difficult for homeless people. Issues identified by participants in the review include:
Lack of understanding by mainstream agencies of homeless issues and how to deal with
homeless clients – only 20% of online survey respondents said their work with homeless people
was rarely or never undermined by mainstream services failure to be “homeless friendly”
Transience of homeless people, which means they move between the geographical
boundaries of mainstream services and are cut off from service delivery when they do so
Mobility and lack of a stable address may result in homeless people not receiving mail and
other forms of communication, and so do not follow up adequately on information from
mainstream service providers (and can be removed from waiting lists for services as a result)
Some clients’ fear of bureaucracy, which causes them to avoid contact (particularly with child
protection and immigration services)
Multiple needs of homeless people, meaning there is a need to draw on resources from a
range of government department areas – all of which have different processes and regulations
Age and time limits on support when people may need longer
Referral loops between services like Crisis Care, DCP district offices and DoH’s Homeless
Advisory Service
In particular, clients commented on issues they had with DoH including:
Trouble dealing with the bureaucracy associated with DoH applications, which some felt they
could not negotiate without assistance
Slow response rates and waiting lists for DoH and other community housing – which in some
cases meant they simply did not apply
Poor quality and lack of choice offered by DoH
Difficulty keeping in contact to remain on waiting lists when transient
In focus groups, collaboration with mainstream agencies like DHS Centrelink, DCP and DoH was cited
as a key feature of success stories shared by agencies. One focus group’s highest priority was identified
as consistent policies and procedures across government departments on homelessness. This would
enable both service staff and homeless people to interact with them more successfully. In particular,
there was a clear need for DCP and DoH to collaborate more closely on responsibilities about
homelessness. DCP was also identified by some key stakeholders as having a role in advocating to
other government departments for resources and access issues for homeless people.
71
In Chapter 6, DHS Centrelink’s community engagement model is detailed as a practice example of a
mainstream government department’s response to homeless people which was highly valued by both
clients and the sector. Its reputation was based on the skills of its staff and the capacity of the model to
effectively engage highly marginalised homeless people in their own environments to provide direct
services and links to other provision. This is a model which could be used by other government
departments. In particular:
Housing: DoH could use the community engagement model to provide a worker to undertake
outreach to homeless people to resolve issues and improve their access to services. Such a
service could undertake priority interviews, provide information about appeals and ensure
homeless clients maintain their place on waiting lists.
Young people in care: As detailed in Chapter 7, DCP could use a community engagement
model and allocate placements for young people who repeatedly abscond from care and
who are either homeless or at risk of homelessness, to a specialist social worker(s) who can work
with non-government youth services, develop strategies and alternatives to placement, and
engage young people in their own environments.
Employment and training: As detailed in Chapter 8 a community engagement model would
be suitable for a specialist JSA or homeless employment and training service. This service could
be delivered through outreach visits to hostels, day centres, other homeless services and parks.
It could assist homeless people to meet their JSA reporting requirements, engage them in
appropriate work and training activities and ensure use of Employment Pathway Funds (EPFs)
and Employment Preparation Plans (EPPs) take homeless issues into consideration.
Recommendations:
29. That DoH use DHS Centrelink’s community engagement model to develop a service
that provides outreach to homeless people.
(See Recommendation 9 for use of community engagement model for young people in
care, and Recommendation 18 for employment and training services.)
Local government
Both City of Perth and City of Fremantle highlighted in interviews that while local government does not
generally have a role as a service provider to homeless people, they are active stakeholders in
homeless issues. This is particularly true of inner city local governments who find larger number of
homeless people drawn to their areas. Local governments support and advocate for the provision of
services in their areas. This is demonstrated by the City of Fremantle’s feasibility study to support of the
nightshelter/sobering-up facility proposal; the support provided by City of Vincent and City of Perth for
72
Registry Week, and their involvement in the People in Parks Working Group. The City of Perth also
organises the annual Homeless Connect event to bring together an extensive range of services to
support homeless people.
Local government has direct interactions with homeless people through its role as a manager of public
space. Council rangers often have contact with homeless people, particularly rough sleepers using
local parks. City of Fremantle and City of Vincent fund the Nyoongar Patrol to assist Aboriginal in public
places. City of Fremantle has a Safety and Liaison Team which, among other duties, liaise with transient
people using public spaces to help anti-social behaviour and reduce their interactions with the police.
Chapter 10 deals directly with people in parks. Recommendations relating to Nyoongar Patrol and
public facilities are made at the end of this chapter.
Local governments have roles related to planning and community development. As the planning
authority they can provide critical support to any new developments – both in terms of service provision
and general housing provision. As an advocate for community development, they can bring this
perspective to the table and support initiatives that help integrate homeless people into local
community life.
Recommendations:
30. That DCP liaise with City of Perth to clarify their role in relation to homelessness and
identify potential areas for partnerships.
(See recommendations 8, 15, 25, 31, 32 and 33 that include a role for local governments)
73
Chapter 10: People in parks
I go drinking to kill the pain during the day and at night-time shut down and sleep.
– man met in Fremantle town centre
Within the brief of the review, a section of the research was specifically ring-fenced for people in parks.
This group are frequent users of public spaces and have a significant cross over with inner city homeless
people in Perth and Fremantle. In keeping with this, this group is given its own dedicated chapter in this
report. To provide information for the review, informal interviews were undertaken in parks in both Perth
and Fremantle. It is worth noting, however, that these interviews were informal, with some people
choosing to talk less than others. Specific questions were asked in key stakeholder interviews and the
online survey, and data was provided by a number of agencies that work with this group.
Numbers of people in parks
I dreamt I had a fire and all my people around me sitting over there in the park.
– man met in Robertson Park
Estimating the numbers of people in parks is understandably difficult. There are regulars and people
who move in and out of the groups both on short-term and long-term basis. There are also other regular
users of the parks and it is difficult to describe the differences between the groups without making
uncomfortable distinctions around people’s cultural background and/or dress sense. Work by the City
of Fremantle defined a group as “disruptive street present drinking”,111 however, this review is more
concerned with meeting people’s unmet needs than it is of anti-social behaviour. Such definition
problems aside, data that provides insight into the numbers of people in parks was sourced from
interviews held for this review, Nyoongar Patrol, WA Police, Registry Week and PATS.
Informal interviews
The review proposed to conduct 50 informal interviews with people in parks in inner city Perth and
Fremantle. Given the nature of outreach and talking to people in groups, a total of 55 were
undertaken, spread fairly evenly between the two locations. Table 11 shows the make-up of the two
groups. It is worth noting that some of the differences in the groups can be attributed to the role of the
agency that assisted the researcher with the outreach. In Fremantle, outreach was undertaken with St
Patrick’s Street to Home service which works with rough sleepers in general. Perth sessions were done
with Anawim’s alcohol and drug worker, hence higher numbers of women and an exclusive focus on
Aboriginal clients. It can, however, be concluded that the Fremantle people in parks tend to include
111 See Anne Goodall Consulting (2012), “Disruptive Street Present Drinking in Central Fremantle: Exploring Solutions
with Stakeholders”, report prepared for City of Fremantle
74
Aboriginal people who are usually local to the area, while Perth encompasses a mix of both local and
non-local Aboriginal people. This is in keeping with observations made by the Nyoongar Patrol and
others regularly working with these groups. People in parks met in Perth included people from
Kalgoorlie, Leonora, Meekatharra, Northam, Wagin, Mount Magnet, Newman, Broome and Kimberley
communities.
Table 11: People interviewed in parks
Details Park-based Total
Fremantle Perth
Men 23 15 38
Women 4 13 17
Aboriginal – local 14 13 27
Aboriginal – not local 2 15 17
Aboriginal – total 16 28 44
Under 20 years old 1 0 1
20-50 years old 22 23 45
Over 50 years old 4 5 9
Total people interviewed 27 28 55
Details were also gathered about where people are currently staying. As Table 12 shows, about half of
those interviewed in parks were currently sleeping rough. A further 22% said they had their own place
and 22% were staying with friends and family. Only a small percentage was staying in accommodation
services. Getting a house was generally seen as the way people were accommodated, with very few
people mentioning hostels or services when talking about finding accommodation. This was particularly
prevalent in the Perth parks and amongst Aboriginal people interviewed.
Table 12: Where people in parks are staying
Where people live Fremantle people in
parks
Perth people in parks Total %
No. % No. %
Sleeping out 14 52% 13 46% 27 49%
Temporary housing
(eg hostel, refuge)
1 4% 2 7% 3 5%
Friends/family 6 22% 6 21% 12 22%
Own place 6 22% 6 21% 12 22%
Unknown 0 0% 1 4% 1 2%
Total 27 100% 28 100% 55 100%
75
People were also asked about whether they felt safe and stable where they lived. This question is
important as it can uncover homelessness that is hidden by people crashing with friends and family,
some of whom move regularly between this and periods of rough sleeping. As Table 13 shows, about
half of those staying with friends and family in Fremantle feel unsafe or unstable. In comparison only
one person in Perth who was staying with friends and family felt it was sage and stable. People spoke
about financial abuse, family conflict, violence and threats to their friends/families’ tenancies.
Table 13: Number of people in parks who feel safe and stable where they live
Felt safe and stable
where they lived
Fremantle people in
parks
Perth people in parks Total
%
No. % No. %
Sleeping out 1 7% 0 0% 1 4%
Temporary housing
(eg hostel, refuge)
1 100% 2 100% 3 100%
Friends/family 3 50% 1 17% 4 33%
Own place 6 100% 6 100% 12 100%
Total (that feel safe and
stable out of all those
interviewed)
11 41% 9 32% 20 36%
Nyoongar Patrol data
The Nyoongar Patrol provides early street level interventions to local and remote Aboriginal people who
use public spaces. The Patrol is funded to work in areas including Fremantle and Northbridge. It does
not cover City of Perth parks, but is funded for those in the City of Vincent. Nyoongar Patrol supplied
data for the 10 months between July 2011 and April 2012 which is included in Appendix 9. From this it
can be noted that:
The numbers for Fremantle may give a good indication of levels of people in parks in this area,
however with no routes in Perth, only City of Vincent areas are covered and counted as part of
the Perth inner city area. In Fremantle there was an average of 11.8 people seen per shift
between July and December 2011, with 16.4 people per shift seen in Vincent.
54% of the drop-off points recorded for Fremantle were home (however, only 32% of clients
were provided with transport, so it is unknown whether or not 68% had a home)
36% of drop-off points recorded for Vincent were home (however, 70% of people were not
provided with transport so it is unknown whether or not they had a home)
There are few referrals either to or from the Patrol to homeless sector agencies or other support
services.112 A recent evaluation of the Nyoongar Patrol recommended a bigger role for
advocacy and collaboration with other services.113
112 The data does not distinguish between whether a referral is in to the Nyoongar Patrol or made onwards by the
Patrol themselves.
76
Police data
This year the WA Police have been keeping figures on the people they see and interact with in
Wellington Square (and later Victoria Garden). The following figures are from January to mid-May:
2,300 patrol hours
403 move-on orders
102 liquor infringements
14 children reported to DCP
117 seizure/destruction of alcohol
About 100 arrests/summons
Over this time the police spoke to just over 900 different people on 2,400 different occasions.114 These
figures do not represent all people in parks seen by the police over this period, but the numbers they
spoke to – others were not spoken to and left alone. From this it can be seen that police issued move-
on orders on 17% of the occasions they interacted with people, issued liquor infringements on 4% of the
occasions and seized alcohol on 5% of occasions. The police have made a list of the 10 people they
see most often in order to make referrals to relevant agencies for support.
Other data
Other data on rough sleepers was collected as part of Registry Week and is presented in Chapter 3. This
survey specifically targeted rough sleepers rather than people in parks. There will be differences
between the two given the details provided above about numbers of people in parks who had their
own place or were staying with friends/family. Registry Week found 185 people and surveyed 158, of
whom 58 were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
PATS provides accommodation and transport for people from regional and remote communities who
need to come to Perth for medical treatment. Given the proximity of Royal Perth Hospital to Wellington
Square which is frequented by people in parks, there is a subset of PATS clients who move in and out of
the people in parks population. PATS estimates it has about 2,000 people per year come to Perth for
hospital treatment, of which 600 stay in hostels. The remainder stay with friends and family.
113 John Scougall Consulting (2012), “Nyoongar Patrol Evaluation: Keeping People Safe”, Nyoongar Patrol, Perth 114 Given the variation between numbers of officers in a team, time taken when dealing with individuals and figures
only relating to people that police spoke to, rather than were seen on a day, it is not possible to use the Police data
to estimate numbers in the park at any given time.
77
Usage of parks and services
I stay out when I’m on the turps. I look after my family and camp out with them and drink.
– man met in Fremantle park
In both Perth and Fremantle most people in parks talked about using public spaces to meet family and
friends. Parks are social places where people are able to spend time and be away from where they are
staying (if they have somewhere). In Fremantle, people talked about not being welcome during the
day where they are couch surfing and getting away from squats to ensure they do not receive
unwanted attention where they sleep. In Perth, people talked about wanting to escape the
claustrophobia of small rooms in hospitals, hostels and homes of family/friends or having nowhere else
to go because they are sleeping rough.115 Two people in Perth specifically talked about being in parks
because the day centres are closed in the afternoons. In Fremantle four people talked about being
banned from the day centre. Parks were also identified by people as a place to drink, with a few
people in Fremantle talking about feeling unwelcome and unable to afford to drink elsewhere. At least
three quarters of those interviewed were drinkers,116 though the extent to which they regularly drank in
parks may vary. Two people met in Fremantle who have their own place said they stay away from
home when they are drinking or in trouble. This was also discussed with a group of six met in Perth (three
of whom had their own place). While one of the men said he would welcome his friends to his house as
a safe place to drink, the others said they would not go because it would cause trouble for him.
The most common place that people in Fremantle mentioned going for help was St Patricks’
Community Support Centre, with over half of those interviewed specifically discussing it by name. It was
used primarily for basic needs and as a place to meet friends/family. St Patrick’s Street to Home service
was also used by many117 and was highly valued. Some indicated that there were few choices of
services outside the main St Pat’s centre, though others mentioned the soup van, The Sisters’ Place,
Nyoongar Patrol and a few other specialist and basic needs services. Only one person mentioned
going to centres in Perth (Ruah and Tranby) indicating that her family go there so she goes up to visit
them. Others either did not mention services outside Fremantle or specifically said they tended to stick
in Fremantle. People met in parks in Perth were less likely to identify places they went for help,
particularly those who were from regional and remote areas. The most common places that people did
use were day centres, particularly Tranby which was mentioned by twice as many people as any other
service. Despite there being a greater range of services available in Perth, people met in Perth parks
named less services that they used than people met in Fremantle parks did.
The online survey contained a specific section to enable services to provide information about people
in parks. Table 14 shows how often people in parks access services. A third of services see this client
group often or all of the time. These services were primarily engagement style outreach services and
115 See above for numbers of people and where they are living 116 As evidenced either by them drinking at the time or from what they said in conversation 117 Unsurprisingly as the Street to Home worker assisted with the outreach
78
day centres. In contrast, those that saw people in parks rarely or not at all were often accommodation
services. Others who said they did not see people in parks were youth, CaLD and government services.
Table 14: People in parks’ use of services
How often do people in parks use your service? %
Not at all 6%
Rarely 20%
Sometimes 41%
Often 22%
All the time 11%
Barriers to accessing services
I’d rather be in jail than go to a refuge.
– woman met in Russell Square
In interviews, service providers spoke about how people in parks tend to come in primarily for basic
needs and did not fully engage with services. In interviews with key stakeholders and the online survey,
the reasons respondents felt people in parks were not using services revolved around the following
themes:
Not suited to needs or group: Services were not targeting or suited for the needs of people in
parks which can include mixed age groups and large numbers of Aboriginal people. Services
also focus on clients who are easier to work with and who are open to change while people in
parks are primarily in the “stuck” category of the ladder of change.118
Rules and regulations: Complex assessments, hostel curfews, lack of wet provision, and lengthy
bans mean people are unable to access or are uncomfortable with services.
Past experiences: People either mistrust services in general or have had poor experiences with
services in the past.
Lack of knowledge of services: Particularly amongst rural and remote people using Perth parks.
Cultural issues: A large number of people in parks are Aboriginal and there are few Indigenous
services in the inner city homeless sector. There are also the particular cultural considerations
for people from remote and regional communities. Nyoongar Patrol is the only Aboriginal
service in the sample listed that works in Fremantle and, while it operates in City of Vincent, it is
not funded to work in parks in City of Perth. Anawim and Daydawn are the other Aboriginal
services and both are based in Perth.119
118 See Outcomes Star – details in Chapter 6 and Appendix 8 119 See Appendices 3-6
79
There are also particular issues related to people who come to Perth for medical reasons or to visit
family who are receiving treatment. While some receive treatment and are quickly returned to country,
renal patients need to be in Perth for a considerable length of time. This prolonged stay can result in
more people coming to Perth to see family, and in PATS placements breaking down over time.
Nyoongar Patrol has funding to assist people return to country, but can struggle to use this when it is
unable to find people a bed for the night before their flight home. Wellington Square, where many
regional people gather, is also outside the Patrol’s funded area.
These observations were borne out in feedback from people in parks during interviews. In Fremantle,
while not many people in parks talked about barriers to services, those who did raised issues about:
Bans from services – with the lack of alternative services cutting them off from basic resources
like food and showers.
Lack of funds – New Zealanders and other non-residents who were not eligible for DHS
Centrelink benefits were restricted to using services that were free, or only when they were able
to get money through work or other means.
Safety and restrictions in accommodation – Some people did not want to use hostels and
lodging houses because they were in couples or had children or family members they would
like to be able to have visit them (one person was particularly concerned that they would not
be a safe place for his daughters to visit). Others felt hostels were “too much like jail” or “full of
drunks”.
Cost of accommodation – particularly “low-cost” hotels where the nightly rates add up over
time to a significant proportion of their income, and seemed high given the standard of
accommodation provided.
Mental health – Two people indicated that their mental health prevented them from accessing
services. While mental health services are available through MCOT, the type and extent of their
illness meant they were refusing to access such services. One talked about how they would like
more help, but their anxiety/social phobia meant they rarely followed through with
appointments. Another person was sleeping rough and his poor mental health made him
fearful of housing and services.
In Perth reasons given for not using services evolved around two key themes:
Rules and restrictions – Seven people said they were banned from services or felt their history or
family name would be held against them. Others spoke about there being too many rules, long
waiting lists, curfews, time limits and expensive rents. In addition, four people talked about
feeling unsafe and unwelcome in hostels. The size and intake processes of hostels were
intimidating.
Not suitable – Eight people said they did not go to accommodation services because they
would not separate from their partner. Three people had children with them and one had a
dog.
80
Strategies to address needs
You need to learn how to respect Aboriginal people for what they are – we’re not
asking for the world, just a little decency.
– man met in Robertson Park
When considering appropriate strategies to work with people in parks, the Outcomes Star model120
provides a useful tool for understanding the types of service models that can be useful. Material from
interviews indicates that a larger proportion of people in parks are likely to be in the “stuck” stage of
the ladder of change than other homeless services users. Given this, the style and aims of services that
would be effective with this group need to be focused around harm minimisation and engagement.
Outreach models
By far the most common suggestion for working with people in parks is to use an outreach model. It was
suggested by almost all of the key stakeholders interviewed and 96% of online survey respondents saw
it as important or very important to engaging people in parks. An engagement style outreach service
would be in keeping with the design suggestions from the Outcomes Star for people who are “stuck”.121
Delivering services through this style of outreach model removes pressure on people to meet behaviour
standards, commit to programs, comply with rules, undertake assessment processes, and other barriers
which prevent them from accessing other services. While the current Street to Home services do work
with people from this cohort, the emphasis on case management means that people in the “stuck”
stage are less likely to engage or be ready for aspects of this service. The following features were
identified by services as important to making the outreach model effective:
Regular and consistent outreach sessions (at least weekly, but preferably more often) that
focus on relationship building to earn trust and learn about unmet needs.
Inclusion of basic needs, transport and/or brokerage to attract people and give them an
immediate and flexible response.
Inclusion of a multi-disciplinary service to meet the range of people’s needs including health,
mental health, housing, drug and alcohol issues.
Involvement of Aboriginal staff and organisations.
Connections with and access to other services – this could include access to allocated
bedspaces and sobering-up facilities, as well as good links to day centres and Street to Home.
In the online survey the following services indicated they undertake outreach to engage clients who
are not connected to services:
Street to Home services – at Tranby, Ruah and St Patrick’s
MCOT
120 As detailed in Chapter 6 and Appendix 8 121 See Appendix 8
81
Salvation Army – Inner City Project
Drug and Alcohol Youth Service (DAYS)
Street Connect
DHS Centrelink Community Engagement Team
Anawim
Nyoongar Patrol
Mission Australia – Inner City Project
In addition, services that have not done the survey, but are also known to do such work also include
the WA Substance Users Association (WASUA), the Street Chaplain and Street Doctor. The services listed
go out with varying levels of regularity depending on their model and levels of staffing. Some already
connect up and will go out together from time to time. Between them, the services listed above could
effectively be a multidisciplinary outreach team. It was suggested by a key stakeholder that an action
research project be undertaken to develop work with people in parks. A lead agency with a
coordination role to help these groups come together, develop protocol and ways of working could
result in regular outreach from a multidisciplinary team. The action research would be an excellent way
of documenting the necessity of the work and any gaps that become apparent, but also of bringing
the groups together and working collaboratively to solve issues and develop better ways of working.
The group should also liaise with local government workers who have regular interactions with people in
parks including rangers and City of Fremantle’s safety and liaison team.
Accommodation models
Much discussion about accommodation and people in parks focuses on nightshelters as a model of
provision. City of Fremantle recently undertook a study into meeting the needs of street drinkers which
identified nightshelter and sobering-up provision as suitable models.122 The Perth Homeless Response
Workshop123 (which focused on people in parks) identified development of a nightshelter as one of its
key strategies. To successfully attract people in parks to accommodation services, one key stakeholder
did suggest that the model would need to be different to what is already provided. Elements of a
model to work with people in parks suggested by participants in the review include:
Combination of nightshelter and sobering up – that can be flexible and adjusted depending
on need. This would combat the issue of people needing to be drunk to use Bridge House124
and provide a safe overnight service for both people who have been drinking and those who
have not. In Fremantle, 23 of the 27 people interviewed said they would use a nightshelter.
While not everyone in Perth was asked about a nightshelter, half did suggest one or said they
would use it.
Culturally specific accommodation – this could include engaging Aboriginal hostels, ensuring
connections to Aboriginal communities (both locally and in the regions) or at the very least
122 See Anne Goodall Consulting (2012), “Disruptive Street Present Drinking in Central Fremantle: Exploring Solutions
with Stakeholders”, report prepared for City of Fremantle 123 See Perth Metropolitan Homeless Response Workshop: Final Report, September 2011 124 Several people interviewed – both services and people in parks – discussed the practice of deliberately getting
drunk to be able to use Bridge House for accommodation
82
ensuring good numbers of Aboriginal staff. In the online survey, 95% of services said Aboriginal
workers or services were important or very important to engaging people in parks.
Design features – these include having space, an open fire and facilities to distinguish it from
standard accommodation services.125
Fewer restrictions – including easier access, no- or very low-cost, accepting people with
complex needs and a history of bans, no requirements to participate in programs. The online
survey found 77% of services felt fewer restrictions were important or very important to engage
people in parks with services.
Mixed accommodation – which enables people to share rooms with people they know rather
than strangers, including couples, friends and family members.
Wet provision – a few respondents suggested the provision of services where users could drink.
The Fremantle interviews did ask people about whether they would use a safe place to drink.126
While a number of people said they would use it, over half said they would not. They had
concerns about how issues like violence, begging and conflict between groups would be
managed, preferring to drink by themselves or with their own group.
As detailed in Chapter 5, Vincentcare is currently fine tuning the model for the acute homeless night-
time shelter. This is a tertiary service that will be able to work with the most vulnerable and chaotic
clients including couples, people with dogs, and those with violence, mental health, alcohol and drug
issues, etc. It is currently proposed that the service will accept referrals from Street to Home teams,
Nyoongar Patrol and WA Police to ensure it is used by those who require respite from rough sleeping
and/or are at a critical point in the engagement process. It incorporates many of the features listed
above and its development should be monitored to see what lessons it can provide about the provision
of services of this style and to this particularly chaotic target group.
The other suggestion is to specifically address the accommodation needs of people from regional and
remote areas. One of the five key recommendations of the Perth homeless response workshop127 was
to develop short-term visitor style accommodation for Aboriginal people in Perth from remote
communities. In one of the focus groups, discussion included seeking regional involvement from
communities and interest groups to establish safe places for their people when they are in Perth.
Other strategies
In addition, there is some cross-over between the strategies addressing the needs of people in parks
and those of inner city homeless people in general. Issues that have been discussed in previous
chapters include day centre hours, access to storage, laundry facilities and a variety of food provision
(though this was certainly more of a concern in Fremantle, as Perth benefits from additional food
provision by services like Manna). The online survey found 89% of services felt access to basic needs
was important or very important in engaging people in parks with services. In the parks themselves,
125 Note: these features have been incorporated in the Vincentcare model for the acute homeless shelter 126 This question was added to assist with the City of Fremantle’s study about street drinkers 127 See Perth Metropolitan Homeless Response Workshop: Final Report, September 2011
83
facilities could be improved by ensuring there are water fountains, toilets, showers, bins and
shade/shelter.
Another area that is inadequately explored is that of Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) and
how many adults may have issues related to this affecting their capacity for risk assessment and the
style of engagement necessary to effectively work with them. The Aboriginal Alcohol and Drug Service
(AADS) report that they have started looking into this issue over the past year, though work has been
primarily restricted to prevention and education messages for pregnant women and girls. They suggest
that there are two practitioners in WA who are qualified to undertake a full FASD diagnosis of adults
and as a result there is limited evidence about numbers of people affected, with concern about
significant misdiagnosis of people as having autism or ADHD. It was hoped that applying a FASD lens to
working with some clients would result in strategies for better engagement and more effective work
practices. However, it appears there is insufficient research and work into this area in WA at present.
AADS has reviewed some work being done in Canada, but without Health Department interest in the
issue, it has been unable to take this further.
Recommendations:
31. That an action research project be undertaken to coordinate existing outreach
services to people in parks in Perth that involves:
A suitable lead agency
Regular and consistent outreach sessions
Engagement style outreach that does not require participation in a program
Provision of brokerage funding to ensure flexible and immediate responses
Liaison with local government, particularly rangers and other staff who have
regular contact with people in parks
Documenting gaps in the outreach provision
Development of protocols and joint ways of working.
32. That City of Perth fund the Nyoongar Patrol to deliver services in parks in its area, along
the lines of City of Vincent and City of Fremantle provision.
33. That City of Perth and City of Fremantle review their public facilities to ensure there is
access to basics like drinking fountains, toilets and bins.
34. That an evaluation/research plan be put in place for Vincentcare’s acute homeless
shelter to capture learning about how this model works with the particularly chaotic
group it targets and the impact of its design features.
35. That DCP continue to explore options around nightshelter provision, Aboriginal hostels
provision and visitors centres to meet the accommodation needs of people in parks.128
128 Also see recommendation 9 about winter shelter provision
84
Appendix 1: Services surveyed
Services nominated by DCP:
55 Central
55 Central – Street to Home
Anglicare – Foyer Oxford
Foundation Housing
Fremantle Multicultural Centre
Manna
Mission Australia – Inner City Project
Mission Australia Youth Accommodation Service – Victoria Park
Multicultural Housing Services Program
Ngulla Mia
Nyoongar Patrol
Passages Resource Centre
Perth Asian Community Centre
Perth Inner City Youth Service
Red Cross Soup Patrol
Ruah – Anawim Aboriginal Women’s Service
Ruah – Street to Home
Ruah Centre
Ruah Refuge
Salvation Army – Street to Home
Salvation Army Bridge House
Salvation Army Graceville Centre
Salvation Army Men’s Homeless Services
St Bartholomew’s House – Barts Plus
St Bartholomew’s House – Street to Home
St Bartholomew's House
St Patrick’s – Street to Home
St Patrick’s – Housing Services
St Patrick’s Community Support Centre
The Sisters Place
UnitingCare West – HASS North129
UnitingCare West – HASS South
UnitingCare West – Street to Home
UnitingCare West – Tranby Day Centre
129 HASS North and South services were split for the purposes of the survey as this is how UCW organises
them and it fits with keeping Fremantle and Perth services separate.
85
UnitingCare West – Wynn Carr House
Warrawee Women's Refuge
Women’s Health and Family Services – DV Services
YMCA – Lynks Counselling and StreetsYde Crisis Accommodation
YMCA – Jewell House
Youth Place – Fremantle
Key referral services nominated by DCP:
DCP – Crisis Care Unit
DCP – Fremantle District Office
DCP – Perth District Office
DoH – Homeless Advisory Service
Additional services nominated by reference group130:
Access Housing
Alma Street – Adult Mental Health Service
Anglicare – Street Connect
Anglicare Y-Shac
Centrelink Community Engagement Team
CROFT
Daydawn Advocacy Centre
HOPE Inc
MercyCare
Mission Australia – Drug and Alcohol Youth Service (DAYS)
Mobile Clinical Outreach Team (MCOTT)
Mobile GP
People and Animal Welfare Society (PAWS)
Salvation Army – Community Support Northbridge
Salvation Army – Inner City Program
Salvation Army – Soup Run
Street Doctor
UnitingCare West – Assessment
130 or identified during the course of the research
86
Appendix 2: AIHW inner city service data
The following data is taken from the sample of inner city services in Perth and Fremantle that are
funded through DCP. The data comes from AIHW National Data Collection Agency (NDCA) figures
from the 2010-11 year.
Service provided Needed % Provided % Referred %
Housing and accommodation 4,199 17 3,751 15 748 30
SAAP/CAP accommodation 2,176 8.9 1,998 8 285 11.4
Assistance to obtain/maintain short-
term accommodation
456 1.9 346 1.4 150 6
Assistance to obtain/maintain
medium-term accommodation
452 1.8 390 1.6 146 5.8
Assistance to obtain/maintain
independent housing
1,115 4.5 1,017 4.1 167 6.7
Financial / employment 2,605 11 3,182 13 350 14
Assistance to obtain/maintain
government allowance
582 2.4 914 3.7 78 3.1
Employment and training assistance 191 0.8 151 0.6 58 2.3
Financial assistance/material aid 1,620 6.6 1,949 7.8 153 6.1
Financial counselling and support 212 0.9 168 0.7 61 2.4
Personal support 3,509 14 3,425 14 131 5
Incest/sexual assault support 35 0.1 22 0.1 19 0.8
Domestic/family violence support 789 3.2 753 3 46 1.8
Family/relationship support 363 1.5 347 1.4 24 1
Emotional support 2,309 9.4 2,290 9.2 38 1.5
Assistance with problem gambling 13 0.1 13 0.1 4 0.2
General support / advocacy 5,187 21 5,375 22 488 19
Living skills/personal development 530 2.2 866 3.5 82 3.3
Assistance with legal issues/court
support
404 1.6 333 1.3 166 6.6
Advice/information 2,449 10 2,418 9.7 48 1.9
Retrieval/storage/removal of
personal belongings
284 1.2 272 1.1 21 0.8
Advocacy/liaison on behalf of client 1,520 6.2 1,486 5.9 171 6.8
Specialist services 2,673 10.6 2,555 10.3 634 25.4
Psychological services 107 0.2 69 0.3 53 2.1
87
Specialist counselling services 239 1 105 0.4 159 6.3
Psychiatric services 86 0.4 48 0.2 49 2
Pregnancy support 26 0.1 16 0.1 13 0.5
Family planning support 30 0.1 24 0.1 6 0.2
Drug/alcohol support or intervention 742 3 627 2.5 95 3.8
Physical disability services 10 0 8 0 4 0.2
Intellectual disability services 6 0 6 0 2 0.1
Culturally specific services 562 2.3 549 2.2 24 1
Interpreter services 151 0.6 144 0.6 14 0.6
Assistance with immigration services 134 0.5 113 0.5 30 1.2
Health/medical services 580 2.4 846 3.4 185 7.4
Basic needs 4,237 17 4,615 19 79 3
Meals 1,509 6.1 1,525 6.1 31 1.2
Laundry/shower facilities 1,609 6.6 1,630 6.5 17 0.7
Recreation 736 3 1,090 4.4 17 0.7
Transport 383 1.6 370 1.5 14 0.6
Other 2,154 8.8 2,111 8.4 79 3.1
88
Appendix 3: Bedspaces in accommodation services
Crisis/direct access beds:131
Transitional/medium-term beds:
Service name Area Specialist Funded
support132
Men Women Either Couples* Women +
children*
Families*
55 Central Perth NAHA133 24
Access Housing Fremantle - 17 9
Anglicare – Foyer Oxford Perth Youth NAHA 10 4
Anglicare Y-Shac Fremantle NAHA 3
CROFT Perth - 12 2 3
Foundation Housing Perth - 146 53
Foundation Housing134 Fremantle - 92 13 38
Fremantle Multicultural Centre Fremantle CaLD NAHA 10
Mission Australia Youth Accommodation
Service – Victoria Park
Perth Youth NAHA 3 3
Ngulla Mia** Perth Mental
health
MHC135 16 16
Passages Resource Centre Perth - 17
PAWS (People and Animal Welfare Soc.) Perth - 8
131 Crisis or direct access beds are those that when available can be accessed immediately. In contrast, transitional or medium term beds have a longer length of stay, may involve
a delayed assessment process and waiting list, or only be accessible after a period of time in crisis/direct access bedspaces. 132 ie those services that are funded to provide supported accommodation – note some services may receive funding for other work, but this column particular refers to providing
supported accommodation 133 DCP funded through NAHA 134 Foundation Housing’s Hampton Road is currently being refurbished – as a result an additional 90 bedspaces are currently not available or included in this list. 135 Mental Health Commission
89
Service name Area Specialist Funded
support132
Men Women Either Couples* Women +
children*
Families*
Perth Asian Community Centre Perth CaLD NAHA 3 3 1 13
Perth Inner City Youth Service Perth Youth NAHA 15
Ruah – Anawim Aboriginal Women's
Service
Perth Indigenous NAHA 8
Ruah Refuge Perth DFV NAHA 6 4
Salvation Army – Bridge House** Perth AOD DAO136 10 SUU137
5 detox
4 SUU
4 detox
21 assessment
Salvation Army – Graceville Centre Perth DFV NAHA 6 6 9
Salvation Army – Murali Lodge Perth NAHA 54
Salvation Army – Tanderra Perth NAHA 23
St. Bartholomew’s House Perth NAHA 14 40
St. Bartholomew's House – Bart’s Plus Perth NAHA 7
St Patrick’s – Housing Services Fremantle NAHA 11 130
St Patrick’s – Youth Place Fremantle Youth NAHA 10 properties – number of tenants varies
The Sisters' Place (St Patrick’s) Fremantle - 7
UnitingCare West – HASS North Perth NAHA 14 4
UnitingCare West – HASS South Fremantle NAHA 12
UnitingCare West – Wynn Carr House Fremantle DFV NAHA 7
Warrawee Women's Refuge Fremantle DFV NAHA 5
YMCA – Jewell House138 Perth - 139 37 4
YMCA – Lynks Counselling and StreetsYde
Crisis Accommodation
Perth Youth NAHA 6
* Numbers of bedspaces indicate number of families or couples, not number of individuals. Couples = two individuals, family size may vary
** As specialist mental health, alcohol and drug services, the bedspaces are not deemed crisis or transitional as they are for treatment and recovery services
136 Drug and Alcohol Office 137 SUU = sobering up unit 138 While Jewell House is used as an emergency service provider, only StreetsYde is technically crisis accommodation. Jewell House itself just provides budget hotel accommodation.
90
Appendix 4: Support in accommodation services
Specialist support provided service: A
Specialist supported provided by external agencies visiting the service: B
Services with no/low support:
Service Location
General services Outreach Specialist services Other
Assistance with
accommodation
Ca
sew
ork
DH
S C
en
tre
link
ass
ista
nc
e
Em
otio
na
l su
pp
ort
&
ge
ne
ral a
dv
ice
The
rap
eu
tic
co
un
selli
ng
Ass
ista
nc
e w
ith
EE&
T13
9
Fin
an
cia
l co
un
selli
ng
Re
cre
atio
n
En
ga
ge
ne
w c
lien
ts
Fo
r c
ase
wo
rk
Fo
llow
-up
ex-c
lien
ts
Alc
oh
ol a
nd
dru
g
He
alth
Leg
al
Me
nta
l he
alth
Dis
ab
ility
Em
erg
en
cy
Ge
ne
ral
55 Central Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B A
Access Housing Fremantle ■ ■ ■
Anglicare – Foyer
Oxford
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B Visiting
employment
service
Anglicare Y-Shac Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A B B
CROFT Perth B Intake and
referral only
Foundation Housing Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Foundation Housing Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Fremantle
Multicultural Centre
Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A Access to
interpreters
139 Employment, education and training
91
Service Location
General services Outreach Specialist services Other
Assistance with
accommodation
Ca
sew
ork
DH
S C
en
tre
link
ass
ista
nc
e
Em
otio
na
l su
pp
ort
&
ge
ne
ral a
dv
ice
The
rap
eu
tic
co
un
selli
ng
Ass
ista
nc
e w
ith
EE&
T13
9
Fin
an
cia
l co
un
selli
ng
Re
cre
atio
n
En
ga
ge
ne
w c
lien
ts
Fo
r c
ase
wo
rk
Fo
llow
-up
ex-c
lien
ts
Alc
oh
ol a
nd
dru
g
He
alth
Leg
al
Me
nta
l he
alth
Dis
ab
ility
Em
erg
en
cy
Ge
ne
ral
Mission Australia –
YASS
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B
Ngulla Mia Perth ■ ■ A
Passages Resource
Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B
PAWS (People and
Animal Welfare Soc)
Perth Nightshelter
only
Perth Asian
Community Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Access to
interpreters
Perth Inner City
Youth Service
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A
Ruah – Anawim Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A
Ruah Refuge Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Salvation Army –
Bridge House
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A B
Salvation Army –
Graceville Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B
Salvation Army –
Murali Lodge
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B
Salvation Army –
Tanderra
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B
St Patrick's – Housing
Services
Fremantle ■ ■ B B B B
St Patrick’s – Youth
Place
Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
St. Bartholomew’s
House
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B
92
Service Location
General services Outreach Specialist services Other
Assistance with
accommodation
Ca
sew
ork
DH
S C
en
tre
link
ass
ista
nc
e
Em
otio
na
l su
pp
ort
&
ge
ne
ral a
dv
ice
The
rap
eu
tic
co
un
selli
ng
Ass
ista
nc
e w
ith
EE&
T13
9
Fin
an
cia
l co
un
selli
ng
Re
cre
atio
n
En
ga
ge
ne
w c
lien
ts
Fo
r c
ase
wo
rk
Fo
llow
-up
ex-c
lien
ts
Alc
oh
ol a
nd
dru
g
He
alth
Leg
al
Me
nta
l he
alth
Dis
ab
ility
Em
erg
en
cy
Ge
ne
ral
St. Bartholomew's
House – Bart’s Plus
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
The Sisters' Place
(St Patrick’s)
Fremantle Nightshelter
only
UnitingCare West –
HASS North
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
UnitingCare West –
HASS South
Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B
UnitingCare West –
Wynn Carr House
Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Warrawee Women's
Refuge
Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B
YMCA – Jewell
House
Perth Budget hotel
only
YMCA – Lynks and
StreetsYde
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A A
93
Appendix 5: Basic needs available in non-residential services
The following table details any basic needs provision in non-residential services. Other support services are detailed in Appendix 6.
Service Location Basic needs Other notes
Clo
the
s/b
lan
ke
ts
Fo
od
(m
ea
ls,
sna
cks,
pa
rce
ls o
r v
ou
ch
ers
)
Lau
nd
ry
Sto
rag
e
Sh
ow
ers
Tra
nsp
ort
ass
ista
nc
e
Homeless services
Anglicare – Street
Connect140
Perth ■ ■ ■ Youth service
DHS Centrelink
Community Team
Perth Specialist homeless DHS Centrelink team
DoH – Homeless
Advisory Service
Perth Advises on all DoH matters, Bond Assistance and referrals to crisis
accommodation services
Manna Perth ■ ■ Primary food service only
Mission Australia –
Inner City Project
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ Youth service
Multicultural
Housing Services
Perth CaLD service
Nyoongar Patrol Perth ■ Indigenous service
Passages Resource
Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Drop-in for homeless young people
PAWS (People and
Animal Welfare Soc)
Perth ■ Meals service only
140 Note: Street Connect is funded under a 12 month pilot and at present alternative sources of funding have not been identified for it to continue after this
94
Service Location Basic needs Other notes
Clo
the
s/b
lan
ke
ts
Fo
od
(m
ea
ls,
sna
cks,
pa
rce
ls o
r v
ou
ch
ers
)
Lau
nd
ry
Sto
rag
e
Sh
ow
ers
Tra
nsp
ort
ass
ista
nc
e
Perth Asian
Community Centre
Perth ■ ■ Access to interpreters
Red Cross Soup
Patrol
Perth/
Fremantle
■ ■ Primary food service only
Ruah Centre Perth ■ ■ Drop-in for homeless adults
Salvation Army –
Inner City Program
Perth ■ ■ Outreach service
St Patrick's Centre Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ Drop-in for homeless adults
Street Doctor Perth ■ Specialist homeless health service
Street to Home –
Ruah
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ NPAH Street to Home service
Street to Home - St
Bartholomew's
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ NPAH Street to Home service
Street to Home – St
Patrick's
Fremantle ■ ■ NPAH Street to Home service
UnitingCare West –
Tranby Day Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ Drop-in for homeless adults
Specialist and other services
Alma Street Fremantle Mental health clinic and offers psychosocial support to
outpatients
Daydawn
Advocacy Centre
Perth Specialist Aboriginal advocacy service
DCP – Crisis Care Perth 24 hour telephone service
DCP –Perth Office Perth ■ Child protection and assistance to leave domestic violence
HOPE Inc. Perth ■ ■ ■ Services for wider community, not just homeless
95
Service Location Basic needs Other notes
Clo
the
s/b
lan
ke
ts
Fo
od
(m
ea
ls,
sna
cks,
pa
rce
ls o
r v
ou
ch
ers
)
Lau
nd
ry
Sto
rag
e
Sh
ow
ers
Tra
nsp
ort
ass
ista
nc
e
Mission Australia –
DAYS
Perth ■ Drug and alcohol service
Mobile Clinical
Outreach Team
Perth Mental health specialists
Salvation Army –
Community Support
Perth ■ ■ ■ Services for wider community, not just homeless
Women's Health –
DV Services
Perth ■ ■ ■ Domestic and family violence specialist
96
Appendix 6: Support in non-residential services
The following stable details support services available in non-residential projects. Basic needs service provision in these agencies is detailed in Appendix 5.
Specialist support provided service: A
Specialist supported provided by external agencies visiting the service: B
Service Location General services Outreach Specialist services
Assistance with
accommodation
Ca
sew
ork
DH
S C
en
tre
link
ass
ista
nc
e
Em
otio
na
l su
pp
ort
+
ge
ne
ral a
dv
ice
The
rap
eu
tic
co
un
selli
ng
Ass
ista
nc
e w
ith
EE&
T14
1
Fin
an
cia
l co
un
selli
ng
Re
cre
atio
n
En
ga
ge
ne
w c
lien
ts
As
a v
isitin
g s
erv
ice
Fo
r c
ase
wo
rk
Fo
llow
-up
ex-c
lien
ts
Alc
oh
ol a
nd
dru
g
He
alth
Leg
al
Me
nta
l he
alth
Dis
ab
ility
Em
erg
en
cy
Ge
ne
ral
Homeless services
Anglicare – Street
Connect142
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B
DHS Centrelink
Community Team
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B
DoH - Homeless
Advisory Service
Perth ■ ■
Manna Perth
Mission Australia –
Inner City Project
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■
Multicultural Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A A
141 Employment, education and training 142 Note: Street Connect is funded under a 12 month pilot and at present alternative sources of funding have not been identified for it to continue after this
97
Service Location General services Outreach Specialist services
Assistance with
accommodation
Ca
sew
ork
DH
S C
en
tre
link
ass
ista
nc
e
Em
otio
na
l su
pp
ort
+
ge
ne
ral a
dv
ice
The
rap
eu
tic
co
un
selli
ng
Ass
ista
nc
e w
ith
EE&
T14
1
Fin
an
cia
l co
un
selli
ng
Re
cre
atio
n
En
ga
ge
ne
w c
lien
ts
As
a v
isitin
g s
erv
ice
Fo
r c
ase
wo
rk
Fo
llow
-up
ex-c
lien
ts
Alc
oh
ol a
nd
dru
g
He
alth
Leg
al
Me
nta
l he
alth
Dis
ab
ility
Em
erg
en
cy
Ge
ne
ral
Housing Services
Nyoongar Patrol Perth ■ ■ ■
Passages Resource
Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B
PAWS (People and
Animal Welfare Soc)
Perth
Perth Asian
Community Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Red Cross Soup
Patrol
Perth
Ruah Centre Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A B B
Salvation Army –
Inner City Program
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
St Patrick's Centre Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B
Street Doctor Perth ■ ■ A A
Street to Home –
Ruah
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B B
Street to Home - St
Bartholomew's
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B
Street to Home – St
Patrick's
Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B
UnitingCare West -–
Tranby Day Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ B B B B
Specialist or other services
Alma Street Fremantle ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A A A
98
Service Location General services Outreach Specialist services
Assistance with
accommodation
Ca
sew
ork
DH
S C
en
tre
link
ass
ista
nc
e
Em
otio
na
l su
pp
ort
+
ge
ne
ral a
dv
ice
The
rap
eu
tic
co
un
selli
ng
Ass
ista
nc
e w
ith
EE&
T14
1
Fin
an
cia
l co
un
selli
ng
Re
cre
atio
n
En
ga
ge
ne
w c
lien
ts
As
a v
isitin
g s
erv
ice
Fo
r c
ase
wo
rk
Fo
llow
-up
ex-c
lien
ts
Alc
oh
ol a
nd
dru
g
He
alth
Leg
al
Me
nta
l he
alth
Dis
ab
ility
Em
erg
en
cy
Ge
ne
ral
Daydawn
Advocacy Centre
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ A
DCP – Crisis Care Perth ■ ■
DCP – Perth Office Perth ■
HOPE Inc. Perth ■
Mission Australia –
DAYS
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A A A A
Mobile Clinical
Outreach Team
Perth ■ ■ A A A
Salvation Army –
Community Support
Perth ■
Women's Health –
DV Services
Perth ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ A A B A
99
Appendix 7: Daily vacancies
The figures below are calculated from the bedcount data from March 2012 for all metropolitan services
listed. This covers 19 nights. These are for adult services and do not include vacancies in youth projects.
The number of vacancies is counted at 3:30pm daily, so does not represent how many may be vacant
at the end of the evening.
Male vacancies
The table below shows the number of male vacancies on a daily basis. The homeless vacancies are
taken from UCW, St Patrick’s, St Bart’s, Salvation Army and 55 Central. Even though it is a small snapshot,
it is worth noting that on 20% of all the nights there were not any male homeless vacancies. On
average there were 3.1 beds per night available for homeless men. In addition to the figures below, the
bedcount included two vacancies at specialist domestic and family violence men’s service Breathing
Space for the entire period. It is also worth noting, however, that the number of beds available for any
individual would be fewer as they could be excluded from services because of bans, mental health
needs, etc.
Women with children
The table below shows the number of vacancies for women with children over the period. Data was
taken from the Women’s Council scoping survey showing half the refuges in the metropolitan area will
accept women who are homeless for reasons other than domestic violence. From these it was
calculated that 10% of vacancies in these refuges could be for homeless women on the basis of data
given by two of nine refuges (with the rest indicating they worked on a case by case basis, though
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 <1 1<2 2<3 3<4 4<5 5<6 6<7 7<8 8 9
No
. nig
hts
No. vacancies
Vacancies for men at 3:30pm daily (March 2012)
100
prioritised domestic violence). This shows there was less than 1 vacancy for a homeless woman with
children all month. On average there were 2.7 beds per night available for women with children
escaping domestic violence and 0.2 for homeless women with children.
Women without children
The table below shows the number of vacancies per night for women without children from the
bedcount. The homeless beds are calculated at 25% of the vacancies in the three refuges that take
single women – ie Wynn Carr, Zonta and Anawim. This was calculated on the figures given by refuges in
the domestic violence sector scoping survey and from case files at Anawim analysed in previous
research.143 The table shows that for over a quarter of days recorded there was no vacancy for
homeless women without children. On only one occasion was there more than 1, though this was
calculated at 1.2. The average number of vacancies per night was 1.8 for women without children
escaping domestic violence and 0.6 for homeless women without children.
143 Watkins, Leah and Prichard, Jo (2011) “The art and science of service linkages”, Ruah Community Services, Perth,
WA
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 <1 1<2 2<3 3<4 4<5 5<6 6<7 7<8 8 9
No
. nig
hts
No. vacancies
Vacancies for women with children at 3:30pm daily (March 2012)
Homeless
DFV
101
Second snapshot
A second snapshot of bedcount figures in July/August did not supply a breakdown of vacancies per
service. It does show a very low daily vacancy rate shown is low, so given the breakdown detailed
above for the previous period, the number of vacancies for homeless women or families (as opposed
to those experiencing domestic and family violence) would be negligible.
DCP-funded crisis accommodation services – average vacancies at 3:30pm daily
16-20
July 2012
23-27
July 2012
30 July –
3 Aug
6-10
Aug 2012
13-17
Aug 2012
Family and domestic violence vacancies
in the metropolitan area
2 2 4 4 6
Vacancies in metropolitan area for other
homeless adult singles and families
1 1 1 1 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 <1 1<2 2<3 3<4 4<5 5<6 6<7 7<8 8 9 10
No
. nig
hts
No. vacancies
Vacancies for single women at 3:30pm daily (March 2012)
Homeless
DFV
102
Appendix 8: Outcomes Star service types and ladder of change
The following table summarises the use of the ladder of change in the Outcomes Star system and how particular service designs are needed for different levels
on the ladder of change. The Outcomes Star was developed specifically for use with homeless people and measures the complexity of individuals being at very
different stages on the ladder of change across a range of different aspects in their lives.144
Ladder of change stage Description Intended outcomes Examples of service types
Stuck
(1-2)
1. May be causing harm to self or others, cut
off and not aware of problems, unwilling to
talk about problems out of fear or mistrust.
2. The first sign of the possibility of change
when people feel fed up with how things
are. This may be fleeting, won’t engage
with support in any real or meaningful way.
Prevention of worse harm
Reduce impact on community
Move people to accepting help
Informal drop-in services
providing basic services (eg food)
Outreach (engagement style, not
follow-up or casework style)
Some low-rules style hostels
Mandatory engagement (eg via
probation)
Accepting help
(3-4)
3. Dissatisfaction with problems gets stronger,
though change still seems impossible or
frightening. Will meet workers or others
offering help, though willingness or ability to
do this may come and go.
4. Start to engage with support in a more
consistent way, however, not taking
initiative without workers driving the
Sort out practical issues, eg
benefits, health needs
Engage in activities and
encourage move to taking
responsibility
Hostels
Day and community services with
voluntary access but able to
accommodate chaotic people
and erratic attendance
144 From www.outcomesstar.org.uk/outcomes-star-service-planning
103
process.
Believing
(5-6)
5. Move towards having goals, not just
problems that need to be avoided.
Understand they need to be part of making
change happen so engage rather than just
going along with workers’ plans.
6. Start to do things differently. This may or
may not work, so need a lot of support
through process.
People make real changes in
their lives
Reduce/prevent relapse
Supported housing with a high
level of support
Counselling
Support with training,
volunteering and employment
Learning
(7-8)
7. Understanding what works and moving
towards goals more consistently. Still need
support with setbacks.
8. Overcome setback with support and learn
strategies for dealing with them. Still need
support and feedback on progress.
Achieving qualification
Maximising independent living
situation
Integration in community
Maintenance
Supported housing with a low
level of support
Floating support
Support with training,
volunteering and employment
Self-reliance
(9-10)
9. New strategies well established so can
maintain change on own, though may
need checking when crises arise.
10. Have resolved problems and can meet
challenges as they arise. Don’t need
outside support to maintain things, but can
identify when need assistance and how to
get it.
As above but with little or no
support from specialist services
Low level of floating support
Drop-in services
Self-help and user-led groups
104
Appendix 9: Nyoongar Patrol data
Data below is from patrols by the Nyoongar Patrol in central Fremantle and City of Vincent Parks from
July 2011 – April 2012.
Fremantle Vincent Parks
CLIENTS145 Total % Total %
Female 1,351 51% 933 50%
Male 1,310 49% 935 50%
Total 2661 100% 1,868 100%
AGE Total % Total %
Adult 2,201 83% 1,739 93%
18 & under 312 12% 72 4%
11 & under 87 3% 22 1%
5-0 61 2% 34 2%
Total 2,661 100% 1,867 100%
CONDITION Total % Total %
Alcohol 1,121 87% 1,149 77%
Drugs/Substances 35 3% 112 7%
Feuding 9 1% 8 1%
Sniffing 6 >1% 53 4%
Homeless 106 8% 171 11%
Truancy 5 >1% 3 >1%
Total 1,282 100% 1,496 100%
TRANSPORT PICK-UP POINT Total % Total %
Street 245 29% 80 14%
Shopping centre 187 22% 22 4%
Park 307 37% 394 71%
Police 14 2% 8 1%
Other 86 10% 54 10%
Total 839 100% 558 100%
DROP-OFF POINT Total % Total %
Sobering-up shelter 7 1% 14 3%
Home 450 54% 202 36%
Hostel/Refuge 30 4% 52 9%
Relative/Friend 333 40% 197 35%
145 Note this is the number of contacts with people, so the total number of individuals will be less as people are often
seen more than once over the 10 month period.
105
Medical 13 2% 38 7%
Church 6 1% 55 10%
Total 839 100% 558 100%
INCIDENTS Total % Total %
Physical 3 5% 1 4%
Verbal 34 61% 17 68%
Feuding 10 18% 6 24%
Health 8 14% 0 0%
Assault on patroller 0 0% 1 4%
First aid 1 2% 0 0%
Total 56 100% 25 100%
CONTACT INITIATED BY Total % Total %
Self 845 51% 432 37%
Patrol 827 49% 740 63%
Total 1672 100% 1172 100%
REFERRALS IN/OUT146 Total % Total %
Police 98 32% 4 2%
Hospital 8 3% 10 4%
Security officer 36 12% 1 0%
Sobering centre 2 1% 6 2%
Welfare 0 0% 3 1%
Women’s refuge 0 0% 2 1%
Camera room 18 6% 1 >1%
DCD 0 0% 0 0%
Town of Vincent 0 0% 150 58%
Ambulance 1 >1% 0 0%
City of Fremantle 62 20% 1 >1%
DHS Centrelink 11 4% 16 6%
Street to Home 6 2% 7 3%
Other 66 21% 57 22%
Total 308 100% 258 100%
146 The data does not distinguish between whether the referral was made to the Nyoongar Patrol or by the Nyoongar
Patrol