HomelessnessResearchConferenceThu 19–Fri 20 April 2012 — Jasper Hotel, Melbourne

Conference report

Conference hosts

Conference sponsorsThe Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and RMIT University thank Principal Sponsor, the Australian Government through the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, for their generous support of this event.We also thank Housing NSW, Mission Australia, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Hanover Welfare Services and Homelessness Australia for their support.

Platinum sponsor

Premier sponsor Sponsors

Conference dinner sponsor

Principal sponsor

Page 1 Page 2

IntroductionThe two day Homelessness Research Conference was co-hosted by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) and RMIT University in Melbourne on 19 and 20 April 2012. The conference presents a timely opportunity to inform policy and practice discussions and help shape the future directions of homelessness research in Australia.

The conference was a significant event for the National Homelessness Research Network and an important step in continuing the development of homelessness research capability nationally. It was an ideal setting for participants to further their understandings, exchange ideas and develop professional networks. It also provided an opportunity to hear from many leading Australian and international researchers.

Keynote addressesThe conference was opened by Professor Margaret Gardner AO, Vice Chancellor and President of RMIT University and Dr Ian Winter, Executive Director of AHURI Limited. Professor Gardner stressed the importance of these types of forums in developing evidence to support policy-makers in addressing homelessness. Similarly Dr Winter emphasised the significance of knowledge transfer and policy relevant research in attending to homelessness.

The conference commenced with a keynote address from Mr Leon Donovan, Branch Manager, Homelessness Policy with FaHCSIA. He discussed the role of the Commonwealth Government in addressing homelessness. He outlined:

ÎÎ The complex link between research and policy formulation, including the key role that the Homelessness Research Conference can play in policy development.

ÎÎ The complexity of individual pathways into and out of homelessness, which requires a diversity of ideas.

ÎÎ The necessity of a coherent and broad based evidence base that addresses the differences in experiences and policy responses across jurisdictions is required.

Mr Donovan also mentioned the emerging priority areas for research and policy formulation, which included the growth in Indigenous homelessness, young homeless people aged under 12 years and older homeless people—particularly women.

The second keynote address on day one was by made Professor Dennis Culhane f rom the School of Social Policy and Practice, University of Pennsylvania, USA. Professor Culhane’s address examined the dynamics of homelessness starting with an overview of research and policy fields in the United States. He used the US as an example to suggest the couching of homelessness within a wider social policy agenda has been detrimentally affected by a weakened social welfare system. The impact of changes to the welfare state has led to an increase in the rates of homelessness and the type of people experiencing homelessness which specifically included people with disabilities. The example of the US demonstrated how social policy change, welfare state reform and reconfigurations in the nature of the social contract have a critical influence on homelessness.

The research on homelessness has found that:

ÎÎ Shelters are used for long term homelessness, not for crisis accommodation, for which they were intended.

Page 2

Mr Leon Donovan

Dr Ian Winter

Professor Margaret Gardner AO

Page 3

ÎÎ The costs of shelters were greater than the costs of providing permanent stable housing.

ÎÎ Supportive housing is a cost effective intervention.

ÎÎ The homelessness population has a cohort effect (for those born in the period 1954–64) which has implications for the long term health costs of disease for the ageing chronically homelessness population.

ÎÎ The chronically homeless represent a small proportion of the homeless population, however they are disproportionately high users of homelessness services and resources (including prisons, shelters, hospitals).

ÎÎ Prisons represent a significant area of cost shifting for homelessness. A huge proportion of those in prison are homeless and incarceration impacts greatly on chances of finding housing and employment (removes people from the labour market and makes it harder to return).

ÎÎ No one is paid to actually find housing for homeless people. There exists a variety of services that address a range of other policy interventions to prevent homelessness and sustain housing.

The evidence base includes a greater understanding of the pathways into homelessness. Professor Culhane outlined three different pathways into homelessness and the service response needed:

1. Transitional homelessness – relocation assistance.

2. Episodically homeless – low demand residences.

3. Chronic homelessness – permanent supportive housing.

Day oneDay one of the conference included a number of concurrent sessions that allowed researchers to present on their current work. The sessions were organised around a number of themes such as emerging groups of the homeless, homelessness experience for young people, critical issues in addressing homelessness and service and system interventions.

Dr Justin Barker from the Australian Catholic University presented on his research on homeless men who are fathers and Dr Maree Peterson from the University of Queensland outlined her research on homelessness amongst older persons. Mr George Hatvani from HomeGround in Melbourne presented the research findings from a collaborative project, funded by FaHCSIA and conducted by HomeGround services, AHURI, Melbourne City Mission and Hanover Welfare Services. Before George’s paper, Dr Heather Holst, acting CEO of HomeGround, officially launched the report. The purpose of the project was to deliver nationally consistent outcomes measures for homelessness. The findings of the report included the development of a model that is underpinned by:

ÎÎ The timely provision of housing.

ÎÎ Shared accountability across the service system.

ÎÎ Intensive case management.

Download the What makes a difference? report

Other researchers who presented work included Mr Michael Horn from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, who posed the question: Is public housing the best solution to homelessness? Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick and Professor Hal Pawson reported on the homelessness consequences of economic recession and policy reform. Professor Fitzpatrick also provided an interesting discussion on human rights, legal rights and homelessness.

Day one concluded with a keynote address from Professor Chris Chamberlain from RMIT University who outlined:

ÎÎ The increase in the number of boarding houses in operation in Melbourne to support the homeless population (it is possible that the number of people residing in boarding houses has increased by three or four times since 2006).

Professor Dennis Culhane

Page 4

9.00 am WelcomeProfessor David Hayward, Dean of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University

Overview of day oneDr Andrew Hollows, Deputy Executive Director, AHURI Limited

Keynote address - The Housing First approach in Europe Dr Volker Busch-Geertsema, Chair, European Observatory on Homelessness, Germany

10.30 am Morning tea

11.00 am Session 3.1Housing instability

Session 3.2Lived experience

Session 3.3 Longitudinal

12.30 pm Lunch

1.30 pm Session 4.1Developing the evidence

Session 4.2Open session

Session 4.3 Costs

3.00 pm Afternoon tea

3.30 pm Panel discussion - Identifying an ongoing research agenda including priorities

4.30 pm Conference closes

9.00 am Welcome

Professor Margaret Gardner AO, Vice-Chancellor and President, RMIT University

Dr Ian Winter, Executive Director, AHURI Limited

Keynote address

Mr Leon Donovan, Branch Manager, Homelessness Policy, FaHCSIA

Keynote address - The dynamics of homelessness: the convergence of research and policy to prevent and end homelessness in the US

Professor Dennis Culhane, School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania, USA

10.30 am Morning tea

11.00 am Session 1.1Emerging groups

Session 1.2Open session

Session 1.3 Young people

12.30 pm Lunch

1.30 pm Session 2.1Comparing interventions

Session 2.2Systems and services

Session 2.3 Critical issues

3.00 pm Afternoon tea

3.30 pm Keynote address - Counting boarding houses: reflections on homelessness research in Australia

Professor Chris Chamberlain, Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University

4.30 pm Day one ends

Program overviewDay one

Day two

Page 5

ÎÎ The apparent undercounting of boarding houses by the ABS.

ÎÎ The difference between traditional rooming houses, small rooming houses and community rooming houses. Small rooming houses are the most common type of rooming house in Melbourne, representing 44 per cent of rooming houses in the inner city and 93 per cent of rooming houses in the outer suburbs.

ÎÎ The difficult position of inspectors of boarding houses, who seek to protect residents from danger (such as fire) and also prevent closures of boarding houses which could increase rough sleeping.

Overall, day one emphasised the importance of evidence to inform good policy and practice. The presenters and conference participants outlined various ways that researchers, policy-makers and practitioners can contribute to the evidence base. The research presented provided an opportunity to further understand the emergence of ‘new’ groups of homeless persons and the value of high quality evaluations to policy development and practice. The conference provided a space to engage in a wider conversation and critique of homelessness research and enabled ongoing dialogue between researchers, policy-makers and practitioners. It provided an impetus for the continued development of the Homelessness Research Network.

Day twoDay two commenced with an opening address by Professor David Hayward, Dean of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning at RMIT University. Professor Hayward is a housing economist who outlined the interaction between structural deficits and the ways that social policy and economics intersect. He suggested that public and social policy is going to be heavily influenced by austerity measures in Australia. These measures in his opinion would be most likely imposed through Commonwealth and state government budgets to be released and implemented in the coming months. He posed the question: Is it necessary to financially strip social policy in the face of global indebtedness? In answering this question, he provided the following points:

ÎÎ Unemployment is quite low (5%).

ÎÎ Debts are quite low (8% of GDP, compared with 92% in some parts of Europe).

ÎÎ The real problem is collapsed tax revenues, which are shrinking to 1991 levels (20% of GDP).

ÎÎ Collapsed tax revenues are not due to the recession, but rather due to:

� growth in the Australian economy from mining, which has low rates of tax

� companies continuing to claim losses

� GST revenue is low because the high Australian dollar is encouraging consumers to buy online from other countries, thereby avoiding GST.

ÎÎ Therefore, what is needed is not cuts in expenditure, but fairer tax settings.

Following directly from Professor Hayward was the keynote address from Dr Volker Busch-Geertsema, Chair of the European Observatory on Homelessness, Germany. He outlined the Housing First approach in Europe, which is a homelessness policy response that has raised a great deal of interest among policy-makers and service providers in EU member states in recent years.

The philosophy of Housing First programs is to place people as quickly as possible in permanent housing and then provide intensive home-based case management and stabilising support services to prevent a recurrence of homelessness. In his presentation, Dr Busch-Geertsema made a number of important points about Housing First. It is an approach that:

ÎÎ Is not only focused on housing long-term single homeless people with mental illness and substance abuse issues.

ÎÎ Is in clear contrast to transitional, linear, continuum or staircase approaches based on the idea of progressing homeless people in need of support through a series of residential services in order to make them housing ready.

Page 6

Dr Busch-Geertsema concluded his presentation by making the following points:

ÎÎ Housing First challenges traditional images of homeless people with multiple needs as incapable of living in mainstream housing.

ÎÎ Housing First is neither a miracle cure of homelessness for all people affected nor should it be seen as an isolated approach for a tiny proportion of the most excluded.

ÎÎ Housing First projects and housing-led policy strategies have a great potential by emphasising the importance of rapid access to permanent housing and the need for adequate pro-active support in housing for those in need.

ÎÎ Expectations have to be realistic: rehousing homeless people and preventing homelessness will not make those affected ‘healthy, wealthy and wise’. Further integration may need time and sometimes ‘relative integration’ is a more realistic goal.

The morning session on the lived experience of homelessness included a presentation by Dr Catherine Robinson, who provided insights into the strong and ongoing links between an individual’s homelessness and their experiences of violence. Dr Cameron Parsell also spoke about the daily realities of rough sleeping in the capital cities of Brisbane, Sydney and Darwin.

The afternoon session on developing the evidence included a presentation by Ms Rhonda Phillips that explored how evidence can underpin service integration strategies to address homelessness. She made the important points that:

ÎÎ Integration is a means not an end.

ÎÎ Integration is difficult and can be costly.

ÎÎ A fit for purpose strategy is crucial to success.

ÎÎ Governance and capacity building need to be addressed.

Download presentations from days one and two

Dr Volker Busch-Geertsema

Slides from Dr Volker Busch-Geertsema presentation

Page 7

Closing panel discussionThe conference concluded with a panel discussion that sought to identify an ongoing research agenda, including priorities. The session facilitated by Dr Andrew Hollows, Deputy Executive Director of AHURI Limited, included the following panellists:

ÎÎ Professor Dennis Culhane, School of Social Policy & Practice, University of Pennsylvania, USA

ÎÎ Mr Leon Donovan, Branch Manager, Homelessness Policy, FaHCSIA

ÎÎ Professor Suzanne Fitzpatrick, School of the Built Environment, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK

ÎÎ Dr Guy Johnson, Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University

ÎÎ Dr Shelley Mallett, General Manager, Hanover Welfare Services

ÎÎ Mr Tony Nicholson, Executive Director, Brotherhood of St Laurence

The session commenced with the question: Is the current research effort sufficient? The panellists made the following observations:

ÎÎHomelessness research could be more effective in influencing policy. Lessons could be learned from the homelessness writings of Alan Jordan (1960s) which were effective as his work was:

1. Technically and methodologically robust.

2. Well written and accessible.

ÎÎ The challenge is to ensure research on homelessness has policy application. In the next few years, research on homelessness will need to take into account the growing interest in an integrated service approach. Any policy reform concerned with homelessness will be occurring across related domains—such as aged care, hospital services, mental health services, education and employment assistance. This means that research needs to be collaborative across various sectors—including health and disability.

The point was made that most research on homelessness in the UK takes the form of small-scale, ‘bitty’ research projects funded by charities, which doesn’t necessarily hold weight with government. The research that has had the most impact on policy has been larger-scale research projects with greater rigour. Likewise, it was observed that this is enhanced through the development of research questions that resonate with policy-makers and includes collaborations with Commonwealth, state and territory governments and non-government providers in getting the balance right.

The panellists suggested that, like in the UK, homelessness research in Australia is still too piecemeal and we need more larger-scale projects. However, care must be taken not to lose the specifics of locations, which are more possible to represent in smaller-scale projects. Research synthesis is a way to pull together findings from the various types and scales of homelessness research projects undertaken. There is a need for homelessness researchers to get better at publishing articles on unsuccessful homelessness projects, not just successful ones. This helps policy-makers and practitioners avoid trying approaches that have failed in the past.

The panel also discussed how to improve the quality of homelessness research. The conversations included ensuring policy engagement; specifically that engagement with policy-makers needs to happen at the beginning of the research project, before it is conceived. Other insights provided by the panellists included the need for research to:

ÎÎ Have targets and indicators to ensure greater utility by policy-makers.

Page 8

Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

Level 1, 114 Flinders StreetMelbourne Victoria 3000

T: +61 3 9660 2300F: +61 3 9663 5488E: HomelessnessResearchConf@ahuri.edu.auW: ahuri.edu.au

Contact

ÎÎ Make better use of existing administrative data sets, acknowledging their limitations (i.e. they were collected for a different purpose so will not fit perfectly with research questions).

ÎÎ Acknowledge that researchers will continue to pursue what is of particular interest to them.

The panel concluded by suggesting that:

ÎÎ There needs to be space for researchers to think critically about how problems are conceptualised and framed. Researchers can help policy-makers by providing theoretical frameworks for understanding policy problems.

ÎÎ Policy-relevant research should allow both bottom up (i.e. initiated by problems on the ground) or top down (i.e. initiated by broad policy agendas) approaches.

ÎÎ There is a difference between policy-relevant and policy-driven research. Policy-makers do not necessarily want policy-driven research (i.e. research that is undertaken to enhance government policy objectives).

ÎÎ Now is a critical time to review research as the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH) finishes next year and there is also a need to look at new ABS data.

ÎÎ There is a need for more longitudinal data on homelessness in Australia.

ÎÎ There is also a need for more multidisciplinary, collaborative research—to meet the demand for integrated service delivery and collaboration across policy areas.

ÎÎ There is an opportunity to support a more sustained national-level collaboration to support high quality research and in making links with policy and practice.