homelessness & accommodation responses to rough sleepers · responses to rough sleepers in...

Homelessness & accommodation responses to rough sleepers

Department of Housing & Community Development

Final Report

April 2018

2© 2018 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

ContentsPage

Executive summary 4

Introduction 10

Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Katherine and Palmerston 14

Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions 24

Survey of rough sleepers 34

Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providers 49

An alternative accommodation model 55

Concluding Summary 64

Reference & bibliography list 68

Appendices 82

Disclaimer:This final report is delivered subject to the agreed written terms of KPMG’s engagement.This final report provides a summary of KPMG’s findings during the course of the work undertaken for the Department of Housing and Community Development under the terms of the engagement contract dated 17 August 2017. This report is provided solely for the benefit of the parties identified in the engagement letter/contract and is not to be copied, quoted or referred to in whole or in part without KPMG’s prior written consent. KPMG accepts no responsibility to anyone other than the parties identified in the engagement letter/contract for the information contained in this report.


Disclaimers and LimitationsScope of workThis report is solely for the purpose set out in the ‘Project purpose’ and ‘Scope and approach’ sections of this report and for the Department of Housing and Community Development’s information and is not to be used for any other purpose or distributed to any other party without KPMG’s prior written consent.The scope of work has been performed in accordance with the letter of engagement with the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) dated 17 August 2017.InformationIn undertaking our work, we had access to information provided by DHCD, Apmere Mwerre, ZED Consulting and other stakeholders, including publicly available information. We have indicated in this report the sources of information presented and, where applicable, how this data has been used for the purposes of this report. DistributionThis final report has been prepared exclusively for DHCD in relation to the Project. This report must not be used for any other purpose or distributed to any other person or party, except as set out in our Engagement Contract, or as otherwise agreed by us in writing.Important noticeIf you are a party other than the Northern Territory DHCD, neither KPMG nor any member or employee of KPMG : • owes you a duty (whether in contract or in tort or under statute or

otherwise) with respect to or in connection with the attached report or any part thereof; and

• have liability to you for any loss or damage suffered or costs incurred by you or any other person arising out of or in connection with the provision to you of the attached report or any part thereof, however the loss or damage is caused, including, but not limited to, as a result of negligence.

If you are a party other than DHCD and you choose to rely upon the attached report or any part thereof, you do so entirely at your own risk.

LimitationsThe services provided in connection with this engagement comprise an advisory engagement, which is not subject to assurance or other standards issued by the Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board and, consequently no opinions or conclusions intended to convey assurance have been expressed. Any reference to ‘audit’ and ‘review’, throughout this report, is not intended to convey that the engagement have been conducted in accordance with any auditing, review or assurance standards. Further, as our scope of work does not constitute an audit or review in accordance with any auditing, review or assurance standards, our work will not necessarily disclose all matters that may be of interest to DHCD or reveal errors and irregularities, if any, in the underlying information.We have relied upon the truth, accuracy and completeness of any information provided or made available to us in connection with the engagement without independently verifying it. Any findings or recommendations contained within this report are based upon our reasonable professional judgement based on the information that is available from the sources indicated. Should the project elements, external factors and assumptions change then the findings and recommendations contained in this report may no longer be appropriate. Accordingly, we do not confirm, underwrite or guarantee that the outcomes referred to in this report will be achieved.We do not make any statement as to whether any forecasts or projections will be achieved, or whether the assumptions and data underlying any such prospective financial information are accurate, complete or reasonable. We will not warrant or guarantee the achievement of any such forecasts or projections. There will usually be differences between forecast or projected and actual results, because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected or predicted, and those differences may be material. KPMG is under no obligation in any circumstance to update this report, in either oral or written form, for events occurring after the report has been issued in final form.

Executive summary


KPMG was engaged by the Department of Housing and Community Development (the Department) to undertake a review of responses to homelessness and accommodation for rough sleepers in the Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine regions. This report provides our key findings from the review including recommendations for a suite of supports for rough sleepers and homeless people.

Project purpose

The purpose of this project was to improve the Northern Territory (NT) Government’s understanding about the experience of people sleeping rough in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine in order to develop a suite of options to support rough sleepers, improve client outcomes and assist people to transition out of homelessness.

As part of this project, KPMG aimed to identify what services were appropriate for addressing the needs of people sleeping rough, based on feedback from the clients themselves and a review of the literature relating to evaluations of responses to rough sleepers in Australia and internationally. To further inform the NT Government’s decisions about any future developments in response to rough sleepers, the project also aimed to test the feasibility of establishing an alternative accommodation model in Darwin, Palmerston and/or Katherine.

Scope and approach

KPMG has completed the following key components of the project:

• a review of the literature relating to effective responses, strategy and policy for addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people;

• a point-in-time survey of the target cohort of rough sleepers and homeless people to better understand the experience of homeless people and identify suitable supports;

• a series of focus groups with service providers and rough sleepers to further refine the supports identified as part of the survey and to test the practicalities of implementing these supports; and

Executive Summary• an assessment of the cost of delivering short-term accommodation in an

established Visitor Park as a means of testing the feasibility of establishing a similar accommodation model in the Top End.

Further details about this approach are provided in Section 1 of this report.

Report summary

Section One of the report provides the context for this engagement and also the detailed methodology used to deliver each component of the project.

Section Two of the report describes the extent of the problem of sleeping rough in the NT and delivers an analysis of the current state of services provided for rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine. There are currently a range of responses provided to public space dwellers including rough sleepers and homeless people, such as assertive outreach responses (e.g. ‘Street to Home’ programs), ‘move on’ responses (e.g. 24 hour shelters, patrols and the Return to Country program); and crisis accommodation.

The gap identified as part of KPMG’s literature review and consultation included the following supports and service responses:

• Strategic responses to drinking, whether it be intermittent anti-social intoxicated behaviour in the general public or health and violence impacts of alcohol - in particular, there is a lack of safe drinking places.

• Service centers and gathering places including ‘hub’ locations in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine, where case managers can provide referrals to rough sleepers and homeless people and coordinate service access –noting there are hub sites in Darwin and Katherine which are run by non-government organisations but these sites are limited in their capacity to case manage all clients and in limited in terms of the accommodation available to refer clients into.


• Education strategies for rough sleepers about the protocols for camping in or visiting regional centres; and public education strategies for the non-Aboriginal community, to inform people of the culturally-specific lifestyle choices that some Aboriginal people make and promote safe and positive interactions for everyone using public spaces in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine

• Sustainable medium-term transitional housing to enable rough sleepers to be accommodated and access supports as well as enable those wishing to transition out of homelessness to obtain appropriate service referrals.

Section Three describes a range of policy and program responses which were identified as part of the literature review in other parts of Australia as well as international jurisdictions such a Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The models in other jurisdictions include variations on the Housing First model, assertive outreach, managed alcohol programs and wet shelters.

The key learnings from the responses delivered in other jurisdictions were as follows:

• Most jurisdictions have a longer term focus than the responses to homelessness in the NT. For example, the Housing First-type models offers homeless people permanent housing on an unconditional basis. In the NT, the emphasis is more on short-term responses, for example, outreach to rough sleepers and overnight stays in sobering-up shelters.

• A number of jurisdictions in Australia and internationally have a focus on personal choice and self-determined care for the client with permanent accommodation being offered without any preconditions. Housing First models also include onsite case management and care coordination.

• Some responses to homelessness use a decision support tool to not only identify the chronically homeless but also to prioritise client needs and link them with appropriate support services.

Executive Summary• The outreach models used in other jurisdictions, such as the Street to

Home program in South Australia and Western Australia, provide long-term accommodation or permanent accommodation for as long as is required for clients to develop sustainable independence.

• Some other jurisdictions have tailored their response to homelessness to address the specific needs of Aboriginal clients through trauma informed approaches, delivering cultural well-being programs and acknowledging spiritual homelessness among clients.

• Some other jurisdictions have tested the use of transitional accommodation as a means of not only linking people with appropriate support services but also as an opportunity for stimulating behaviouralchange, for example, reduction in alcohol consumption and increase in cultural connection and ceremonial participation.

• A number of jurisdictions have made an effort to educate the public about the experience of homeless people including, for example, New Zealand’s recent publication of the experiences of homeless people; and the Streetlink app in the United Kingdom is advertised as a means of enabling the public to assist homelessness services to support rough sleepers.

The project included in-depth consultation which involved surveying rough sleepers to find out more about their experience and to develop a better understanding of both their current service utilisation and the types of supports that they need to stay safe and improve their wellbeing.

Section Four provides the results from the survey of rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine which was delivered between December 2017 and January 2018. The survey reached 396 rough sleepers and is the largest survey of rough sleepers in the Top End as well as being the first time that the cohort were consulted directly about what services and supports they would actually like to access and use.


Executive SummaryThe survey respondents included a large cohort of people who are over the age of 35 years and predominantly Aboriginal, with approximately 99% of survey respondents identifying as Aboriginal. The survey indicated that the majority of survey respondents had begun to sleep rough because they had left community to see family or take a holiday or because they had behaved in a way that was not well-received or accepted in community. The survey also indicated that the majority of respondents were accessing some kind of health service (95%) and food services (90%). A high majority of survey respondents were not on the public housing wait list (87% of survey respondents) and were happy where they were (83% of survey respondents). Furthermore, only 17% were accessing accommodation services. This indicates that a wide range of supports other than accommodation is required to address the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

Section Five provides a summary of feedback from focus group discussions with rough sleepers and service providers. These focus groups were conducted to refine the supports identified in the survey and the literature into an implementable set of options. The suite of supports identified through this consultation included the following:

• improved access to public toilets and showers – this could involve unlocking existing infrastructure as well as establishing more amenities;

• improved access to health services including outreach services;

• increasing storage options, for example, having a dry storage shelf at a managed site such as a ‘hub’ service centre;

• improved access to bedding such as swags;

• continuing food services so that rough sleepers can access cooked food;

• education relating to local and cultural protocols for rough sleepers as well as the general public;

• establishing safe places that are for drinking and sleeping; and

• opportunities for employment, skill development or community involvement, for example, assisting with maintaining facilities.

With regard to shelter, the rough sleepers in Darwin and Katherine described the following two types of accommodation as preferred models:

1. A managed hostel with a range of accommodation types (camping, beds, family rooms) as well as self-catering facilities, laundry facilities and showers on site. There would also need to be a women’s space and men’s space within the accommodation and also a design and management style that caters to cultural needs such as ‘avoidance’.

2. An open structure with cooking facilities where people could eat, drink alcohol, sleep and stay (wet shelter) and preferably with appropriate security (e.g. security manager). It was considered there would need to be a few of these potentially in areas where people already congregate.

Rough sleepers also indicated there needs to be transport from accommodation to a hub with intensive case management and optional services. Co-location of case-management and services with the accommodation was also seen as an option. This aligns with some of the research regarding best practice responses to Aboriginal rough sleepers in Section 2 which indicates that gathering places and client engagement are more effective responses for addressing the needs of the spiritually homeless and people at risk of homelessness as well as public place dwellers.

From the perspective of the service providers, the two accommodation models outlined by rough sleepers are implementable. However, in the context of Darwin, where rough sleepers indicated that everyone could stay together, service providers considered that this would maintain harmony for only a short period of time. Similarly, in Katherine, it was considered there would have to be two different facilities to cater to the cultural needs of clan groups there.

In both Darwin and Katherine, service providers considered it would be better to re-purpose existing real estate on the outskirts of town rather than develop


Executive Summarytrialing a residential MAP in an appropriate location in the NT.

• The open structure model aligns with the Riley Review as the Riley Review recommended the establishment of safe spots for drinking, away from roads and other hazards.

Section Six provides an overview of feasibility assessment for establishment of a facility similar to the Alice Springs’ Apmere Mwerre Visitor Park, in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine.

a new facility in the city centre because a new or central development might attract negative attention from the public.

Other considerations for the managed hostel model include the following:

• Rough sleepers are willing to pay something for the accommodation, storage facilities, food and bedding. The price point varied and people in Katherine were willing to pay more (~$20/night) compared to Darwin (~$10/night).

• Rough sleepers would welcome more outreach services and service providers in both Darwin and Katherine. It was considered that more resources need to be made available to deliver the services and that accommodation needed to be made available to readily refer people into. Currently, service providers are committed to a ‘no wrong door’ policy but said that at times they have no choice but to turn a client away if there is no accommodation available.

• Service providers noted that rough sleepers may want access to accommodation for longer than 3-4 nights but that they would leave and then return. This fluctuating demand for accommodation would have to be managed with rough sleepers to ensure they understand that they would have to pay for the accommodation while they are away if they want to return to it.

• Service providers noted that, in addition to infrastructure and support programs, there needs to be more recreational programs (e.g. art and music) for visitors as well as opportunities for economic development. Providers felt it would be good to involve rough sleepers in the development or maintenance of any new supports.

Other considerations for the open structure model include the following:• The rough sleepers did not like the idea of a Managed Alcohol Program

(MAP) but this could be because they are not familiar with how such a program as the ones implemented in Canada or the UK work. The Riley Review which aimed to identify policy and legislation that could reduce alcohol fuelled crime and ensure safe communities has recommended


Executive SummaryThis project has brought together ideas from the experience of other jurisdictions, insights from the target cohort (rough sleepers) and service providers to provide a unique evidence base for developing future policy in response to homelessness and rough sleepers in the NT.

This evidence base indicates that there is no single solution for addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people. Instead, a suite of responses that cater to the full spectrum of needs of rough sleepers and enables a client centred approach is recommended.

In particular, it is clear that none of the models used in other jurisdictions have been tested in the context of remote service delivery or in meeting the needs of Aboriginal people. As such, this project lays the foundation for developing a more tailored client centred approach to addressing the needs of rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

1. Introduction


Introduction identify effective responses for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal rough sleepers and homeless people.

Survey and focus groups

The literature review was used to inform the delivery of a survey to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine. In particular, the information around current responses to homeless people and rough sleepers in other jurisdictions was used to test the appropriateness of similar responses in a local context.

To develop and deliver the survey, KPMG partnered with Cross Cultural Consultants (CCC). The survey included a list of 20 questions aimed at eliciting information about the experience of rough sleepers including for example, the reason they started sleeping rough, how long they had been sleeping rough for and what worries or concerns they had while sleeping rough. The survey also included questions relating to which services (if any) rough sleepers were using (refer to Appendix 1 for a copy of the survey).

A number of surveys and research projects which have previously been undertaken in relation to rough sleepers were used as a point of reference for developing the survey. The survey was subject to review by a Project Advisory Group (PAG) which included local service providers as well as staff from the NT Government. The survey questions and methodology were then subject to approval by the Menzies School of Health Research Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). Approval for the survey was granted on 24 November 2017.

CCC liaised with community service providers and stakeholders in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine to identify common places where rough sleepers congregate and the times at which they usually reside there. Based on advice from service providers, CCC developed an engagement plan which identified the best time and locations for delivery of the survey. The survey was delivered by Aboriginal Community Engagement Specialists (ACES), who are local Aboriginal people with ties into the communities of rough sleepers in Darwin and Katherine. The ACES used narrative interviews to deliver the survey in either Kriol or Aboriginal English.

Context

KPMG was engaged by the Department of Housing and Community Development (the Department) to undertake a review of responses to homelessness and accommodation for rough sleepers in the Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine. The issue of rough sleepers, public place dwellers and ‘itinerants’ has had consistent attention in the media in Darwin and Katherine for a number of years. This project was designed to develop an evidence base for informing future policy and investment in effective responses to rough sleepers and assisting those people who want to transition out of homelessness.

Scope and approach

In order to identify effective responses to homelessness and sleeping rough, and also better understand the experience of people sleeping rough in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine, KPMG’s scope included the following key activities:

• a review of the literature relating to effective responses, strategy and policy for addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people;

• a point-in-time survey of the target cohort of rough sleepers and homeless people to better understand the experience of homeless people and identify suitable supports;

• a series of focus groups with service providers and rough sleepers to further refine the supports identified as part of the survey and to test the practicalities of implementing these supports; and

• an assessment of the cost of delivering short-term accommodation in an established Visitor Park as a means of testing the feasibility of establishing a similar model in the Top End.

Literature review

The literature review was undertaken through a search of the grey literature, world wide web and academic literature in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand. The literature review aimed to


Introduction This method prompted the survey respondents to provide information about their experience without necessarily guiding their answers or asking blunt questions.

Depending on the native language used by the survey participants, the ACES also worked alongside interpreters from the Department’s Aboriginal Interpreter Service (AIS). The languages for which interpreters were used included Yolngu, Anindilyakwa, Nunggubuyu, Tiwi and Warlpiri.

The survey was delivered over a five week timeframe in December 2017 –January 2018 with ACES delivering the survey at strategic times during each day, and leveraging service provider relationships with rough sleepers to maximise the survey reach across a range of rough sleepers.

Following the completion of the survey, KPMG and CCC also facilitated focus groups with a selection of rough sleepers and service providers in order to refine the response options and situate them specifically in the Darwin and Katherine context.

Feasibility of a Visitor Park in the Top End

To test the feasibility of establishing a Visitor Park style of accommodation in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine, KPMG assessed the cost effectiveness of the Apmere Mwerre Visitor Park in Alice Springs and considered feedback from the survey and the focus groups. This enabled an assessment of whether the Visitor Park would be a suitable accommodation response for addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine.


Introduction 3. Section 3 – Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions provides

an overview of responses to rough sleepers in other Australian states and territories as well as internationally;

4. Section 4 – Survey of rough sleepers provides an overview of the results of a survey with rough sleepers including a demographic profile, the reasons why people started sleeping rough and the services that they access.

5. Section 5 – Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providers includes a thematic overview of the discussions within focus groups which aimed to refine the supports identified in the survey into implementable options;

The final section in the report is a conclusive summary including a suite of options that could be used to support rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine, based on the research and consultation undertaken for this project.

Following the data analysis and consultation with AHL, KPMG consolidated the key findings and assessed the feasibility of establishing a similar Visitor Park in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine. The feasibility assessment took into account the qualitative and quantitative information collected as part of a survey of rough sleepers. The estimated number of rough sleepers and their accounts of their own experience sleeping rough were used to inform the demand estimates for a Visitor Park style of accommodation in the Top End. Furthermore, consultations with service providers were used to test whether such an accommodation option could effectively meet the needs of rough sleepers and people looking to transition out of homelessness.

Structure of this report

This report provides the findings from the literature review, survey and feasibility assessment and is structured in the following way:

1. This section, the Introduction, including an overview of the methodology and approach to delivering the project.

2. Section 2 – Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine describes the services provided and a description of the extent of the problem;

2. Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine


Key findings from the literature review – responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine

This section highlights the significance of the rough sleeper and homelessness issue in the NT and describes the responses to this cohort of people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

The majority of rough sleepers and homeless people in the NT are Aboriginal.

The services provided for rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine include:

• assertive outreach responses (e.g. ‘Street to Home’ programs),

• ‘move on’ responses (e.g. 24 hour shelters, patrols and the Return to Country program); and

• crisis accommodation.

It is noted, however, that there are no specific services in Palmerston. Instead, services provided in Darwin are leveraged to meet the needs of rough sleepers residing in Palmerston.

This section of the report also provides an overview of the best practice responses to Aboriginal rough sleepers which includes the following:

• For those at risk of homelessness – emergency accommodation, medium-term housing and long-term housing;

• For public place dwellers – legislative approaches, patrols and outreach services, diversionary strategies, emergency accommodation, service centres and gathering places and public education strategies; and

• For spiritually homeless people – client interaction, alcohol strategies including responses to heavy drinking and public education strategies.

Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and KatherineThe gaps between service responses currently provided in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine and the best practice responses include the following:

• The need for more strategic responses to drinking, whether it be intermittent anti-social intoxicated behaviour in the general public or to address the health and violence impacts of alcohol. In particular, there is a lack of safe drinking places which is discussed in more detail in Section 5

• Lack of availability of service centers and gathering places including ‘hub’ locations in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine, where case managers can provide referrals to rough sleepers and homeless people and coordinate service access – noting there are hub sites in Darwin and Katherine which are run by non-government organisations but these sites are limited in their capacity to case manage all clients and in limited in terms of the accommodation available to refer clients into.

• The need to consider education strategies for rough sleepers about the protocols for camping in or visiting regional centres; and public education strategies for the non-Aboriginal community, to inform people of the culturally-specific lifestyle choices that some Aboriginal people make and promote safe and positive interactions for everyone using public spaces in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine

• Addressing shortages in sustainable medium-term transitional housing to enable rough sleepers to be accommodated and access supports; and enable those wishing to transition out of homelessness to obtain appropriate service referrals.


Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine

(Source: ABS 2016, Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2016)

Figure 1: Northern Territory’s Homeless Operational Groups

Table 2: Northern Territory’s Specialist Homelessness Services snapshot indicators

Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) 2016-172

The SHS data reveals the following key characteristics about rough sleepers: • The top 3 reasons for seeking homelessness assistance in the NT were

domestic and family violence (47.3%); housing crisis (28.4%); and financial difficulties (26.1%).

• In the month prior to accessing specialist homelessness services, it was found that 34.1% of people were homeless and 65.9% were not homeless. Of those who were considered homeless, 12.4% of people were sleeping rough and 21.6% utilised short-term emergency accommodation due to a lack of other options

• Around 9% of homeless people using SHS in the NT remained homeless at the end of using support services

• Approximately 81% of people using SHS in the NT are Aboriginal, compared to 25% of people using SHS in Australia.

(Source: AIHW, SHS 2016-17)

This section of the report describes the current context for responses to rough sleepers and homelessness in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine including the following:

• a description of the extent of homelessness in the NT;

• an overview of the current responses to rough sleepers and homelessness based on a desktop review of information relating to services and discussions with service providers as part of focus groups for this project; and

• an overview of responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions.

NT Rough Sleepers

A summary of homelessness and rough sleepers statistics in the NT are provided below from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Specialist Homeless Services (SHS). These statistics indicate the significant size of the problem facing the NT Government in terms of responding to rough sleepers.

ABS demographics of rough sleepers in the NT¹

• The NT has 13.6 times higher the Australia average rate per 10,000 of the population of ‘persons who are in improvised dwelling, tents or sleeping out’.

• Aboriginal people represent 73% of rough sleepers in the NT. This is 3 times higher than the Australian rate of 26.5% of Aboriginal persons who are in ‘improvised dwelling, tents or sleeping out’.

• With regard to the age of rough sleepers, 36.6% were under the age of 35 years and 61.7% were over the age of 35 years.

• Women sleeping rough represented 45.9% and men constituted 54.4% of people sleeping rough.

Table 1: ABS demographics of rough sleepers in the NT

(Source: ABS 2016, Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2016)

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Persons insupported

accommodationfor the homeless

Persons who are inimprovised

dwellings, tents orsleeping out

Persons stayingtemporarily withother households

Persons staying inboarding houses

Persons in othertemporary lodging

Rat

e of

hom

eles

s pe

rson

s pe

r 10

,000

Northern Territory Australia


There are various reasons for Aboriginal people sleeping rough (or living in the long grass) including spiritual homelessness, mental illness and disabilities, substance use, escaping family violence, difficulties in sustaining housing and conflict within the home community. Figure 2 provides a high level overview of the pathways to rough sleeping for people in urban NT and the challenges they face.

Factors leading to rough sleeping

Impacts of sleeping rough

Urban AccessMoving away from Community

Limited Choice Preference

Difficulties in sustaining housing

Community conflict

Avoid violence, sexual abuse and family problems

Access to alcohol

Attend courts and prison

Access to services (illness –health services )

Aboriginal Culture

Avoid harassment

Limited suitable accommodation

Avoid urban city violence

Affordability to return home Safety, freedom and autonomy

Pursuit of daily activities

Cheaper living

Supporting family sleeping rough

Cultural mobility practices

Further exposure to traumatic events

Poor health and wellbeing

Missing Community life and family

Feelings of social exclusion

Negative experiences of being ‘moved on’

Concerns of safety

Com

plex

and

lead

ing

reas

ons

The uniqueness of rough sleeping in Darwin is evident through the way that its accepted status is recognized in public discourse as a phenomenon of ‘living in the long grass’, considered as a normal part of society.3

Overcrowding in Communities

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD) – deeper

unresolved issues

Alcohol is used to self medicate (PTSD)

(Source: KPMG 2017; Refer to reference list; 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

Figure 2: Demand - Darwin and Katherine rough sleepers



Responses to homelessness or rough sleepers are influenced by understandings of what constitutes or defines homelessness.13 Informally, the ABS considers homelessness to be when people are roofless and in a state without a home.14 However, addressing the needs of Aboriginal rough sleepers requires more than just housing.

For example, research indicates that many Aboriginal people do not consider themselves homeless, despite the fact that they sleep out in the open in an urban setting, such as a beach.15 A study in 2011 found that long grassers in Darwin identified remote communities as their home, even though many of them had been sleeping rough for many years and were unsure if and when they would return.16 This highlights the difficulty in identifying Aboriginal rough sleepers and more specifically, their support needs.

Another complexity in identifying Aboriginal rough sleepers is the dynamics of cultural mobility.17 Research indicates that some Aboriginal people who sleep rough in Darwin and Katherine may just be temporarily visiting for ceremonial or family reasons. However, it is unclear the extent to which temporary visitors (as opposed to rough sleepers) access specialist homelessness services.18 Cultural mobility and the periodic influx of temporary visitors can also complicate the counting of rough sleepers. This makes it difficult to accurately estimate the demand for homelessness services and plan response strategies accordingly.19

Categories of Indigenous homelessness and best practice responses

The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) has defined Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) homelessness as losing one’s sense of control over, or legitimacy in, the place where they live. 20

More broadly, Indigenous homelessness is described in three categories as follows: 21

• Public Dwellers: living in a mix of public or semi public places or some private places, which are entered illegally at night to gain overnight shelter, (e.g parks, churches, verandas, car parks, car sales yards (under cars), beaches, drains, riverbanks, vacant lots and dilapidated buildings).

ABS homelessness:Rooflessness

In a state without a home

Indigenous homelessness:Losing one’s sense of control over or

legitimacy in the place where they live.

Those at risk of homelessness

Public place dwellers Spiritually homeless people

AHURI best practice responses

• Philosophies of client interaction

• Alcohol strategies • Regional strategies • Emergency or crisis

accommodation • Public education

strategies • Phone in information

services

• Emergency or crisis accommodation

• Medium-term transitional housing

• Long term housing

• Legislative and police approaches

• Patrols and outreach services

• Diversionary strategies • Addressing antisocial

behavior • Alcohol strategies • Emergency or crisis

accommodation • Service centers and

gathering places • Public education

strategies • Training outreach

workers (Source: KPMG 2017; refer to reference list 22)

• At risk of homeless: At risk of losing one’s house or of losing the amenity of one’s house.

• Spiritually homeless: a state arising from either: a) separation from traditional land, b) separation from family and kinship networks, c) a crisis of personal identity wherein one’s understanding or knowledge of how one relates to country, family and Aboriginal identity systems is confused.

Figure 3: Categories of Indigenous homelessness and associated best practice responses



Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and KatherineNT Government response to homelessness

The Department of Housing and Community Development is in the process of developing a NT Homelessness Strategy and Five Year Action Plan for Homelessness to 2022. The HousingActionNT 2016 provides an action plan of current initiatives to focus on homelessness and supported accommodation. These include:

• Continuing support for existing short-term accommodation options, including the Apmere Mwere Visitor Park, which is assessed for cost-effectiveness as part of this project

• Working with the non-government sector to establish an integrated ‘one-stop-shop’ approach to assisting those who are homeless or in need of support and housing

Appendix 2 provides a more detailed overview of the responses to homelessness in Darwin and Katherine, from Government and non-Government organisations, noting that there are no specific responses to homelessness in Palmerston. In the context of the NT, the response to rough sleepers relies on a few key policy components:

1. Assertive outreach

2. A ‘move on’ response

3. Crisis and transitional accommodation

These components are described in more detail in the following pages, including a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each component. It is acknowledged that the NT Government is currently developing a new Territory-wide homelessness strategy.

Crisis and emergency accommodation

Transitional and supported accommodation for people at risk of

homelessness (short to medium term)

HomelessnessSupported

accommodation Social housing Affordable rental Private rental Home ownership

Assertive Outreach Responses+

(Source: HousingAction NT 2016)

Figure 4: The NT’s adapted framework to support housing continuum


(Source: KPMG 2017; refer to reference list 33)

Darwin’s Street Work 2012

Mission Australia – Case Management

• Single adult men sleeping rough

• 13 clients at any one time, 50 clients per annum

• 3-6 months duration of stay

• 6 bed with shared communal areas and 7 units

• 1 full time equivalent case manager and 0.25 admin staff

Salvation Army– Case Management

• Single adult women and men sleeping rough

• 5 clients at any one time, 50 clients per annum

• Red shield hostel – no limit of stay

• 1 full time equivalent case manager

St Vincent de Paul – Capital Works and Case Management

• Single adult men sleeping rough, must be on NT Housing wait list

• 10 clients at any one time, number of clients per annum not provided

• 12-18 months duration of stay

• Single room accommodation

• 1 full time equivalent case manager

Table 3: Darwin’s Street Work identified in 2012

Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and KatherineAssertive outreach in the NT

Assertive outreach responses commonly involve identifying and supporting rough sleepers with supplies and/or advice.24 Some assertive outreach services provide crisis accommodation, or short to medium term accommodation. The literature indicates that these types of responses are designed to meet the immediate demands of homeless people but do not necessarily address their long-term needs.25 For this reason, a suite of responses including longer-term supports and accommodation may be required in addition to assertive outreach.

The table overleaf provides an indication of the best practice responses identified by AHURI and compares them against the responses identified in Darwin and Katherine regions.26

An example of the assertive outreach responses to rough sleepers in the NT is the ‘Street to Home’ model which has been delivered in Darwin and Alice Springs by a number of non-government organisations. In other jurisdictions (e.g. Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA)), the ‘Street to Home’ model provides long term accommodation to homeless people who have been identified as sleeping rough through street-based outreach services.27

In the NT, the Street to Home model moves homeless people into crisis accommodation or transitional accommodation for case management e.g. hostels or shelters.28 An evaluation of this model found that there was no guaranteed access to permanent housing for rough sleepers and that this was due to the shortage of available public housing in Darwin and Alice Springs. 29

This research also acknowledged that long term accommodation may not be an appropriate response to addressing the needs of Aboriginal rough sleepers.30 Given that Aboriginal people constitute the majority of rough sleepers in Darwin and Alice Springs, it is possible that cultural factors (e.g. a sense of spiritual homelessness) may mean that assertive outreach responses are a more appropriate response to rough sleepers in the NT than permanent accommodation responses. 31

In SA, the Regional Assertive Outreach Programs in Riverland provide an example of a similar model to the NT wherein short term accommodation and immediate access to health services are used as a service delivery model to meet the needs of Aboriginal rough sleepers.32

Table 3 provides a snap shot of the street work and assertive outreach services in Darwin in 2012 noting recent evaluations of these services are limited so it is difficult to determine the current program services.


Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and KatherineBest practices for public dwellers Examples of Darwin & Katherine responses

1 Legislative and police approaches – forced physical removal • Move on responses

2 Diversionary strategies – taking intoxicated, aggressive and/or at risk of self harm to sobering up facility • 24 sobering up shelter

3 Patrols and outreach services – intervention in situations of substance abuse and violence, mediation and dispute resolution.

• Night/ Day patrols

4 Addressing antisocial behavior – Traditional Owners shaming antisocial behavior in public Not identifiable in the literature but consultations indicated that a new program is being investigated for Darwin.

5 Alcohol strategies - Strategic responses to drinking, whether it be intermittent anti-social intoxicated behaviour in the general public or health and violence impacts of alcohol

• Alcohol management plans and 24 sobering up shelter exist but there is a limit to safe drinking places in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine (refer Section 5 for further details from focus groups)

• Night/ Day patrols and Move on responses

6 Emergency or crisis accommodation • Shelters & Hostels

7 Service centers and gathering places - ‘hub’ locations where case managers can provide referrals to rough sleepers and homeless people and coordinate service access

• Drop in centres

• Gatherings

• Medical and health programs

• Focus groups (refer section 5) indicated that the hub sites in Darwin and Katherine have limited resources to effectively case manager and limited ability to refer into accommodation

8 Physical design of public places – physical improvements to public places to support rough sleepers • Self cleaning toilet facilities

9 Public education strategies – cross cultural awareness programs and public education campaigns Not identifiable in the literature, possibly an opportunity for improvement.

10 Training outreach workers The City of Darwin and Larrakia Nation deliver a range of outreach services in Darwin. Similar services are provided in Katherine. It is not clear from the literature the extent to which ongoing training of outreach workers occurs.

(Source: KPMG 2017; refer to reference list 23 and Appendix 2)

Table 4: Best practice responses and examples of Darwin/ Katherine rough sleeper responses, based on research commissioned by AHURI


Rough sleeper located in

populated public space

Patrol picks up rough sleeper (intoxicated

and/or showing anti-social behaviour)

Rough sleeper taken to 24 hour

sobering up shelter

Rough sleeper released to less

populated public space

Return to Country

Urban space removal

Overcrowded Community

House

Becoming an Urban rough

sleeper

Travel from Urban Centre to

Community through Return to

Country

Travel from Community to Urban Centre

Getting Stuck

OR

Choosing to stay in the urban Centre

(Source: KPMG 2017, Refer to reference list; 41)

Figure 5: The typical scenarios of rough sleepers ‘move on’ loops

Responses to rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine‘Move on’ responses

Across the NT, Queensland (Qld), SA and WA, strategies which aim to remove Aboriginal rough sleepers from public areas are commonly referred to as ‘move on’ responses. These ‘move on’ responses include the removal of intoxicated and/or anti-social behavior from public places. The literature indicates that ‘move on’ responses are based on what is best for the public interests rather than what is necessarily best for meeting the needs of rough sleepers. 34 As shown in Figure 5, the typical scenarios of rough sleeper movements resemble a repetitive loop because the ‘move on’ responses prompt a continuous cycle of mobility rather than a means for improving outcomes for rough sleepers.

In the NT, the removal of intoxicated and/or anti-social rough sleepers from public places is supported by legislation such as the Public Order and Anti-social Conduct Act (2001) which enables police to direct a person to leave a particular location or detain goods. Research from the University of Queensland also noted that homelessness is not a ‘protected attribute under discrimination law in any jurisdiction in Australia’ so rough sleepers can be moved on simply because they are homeless.35 Previous research in Darwin suggests that when rough sleepers are intoxicated and/or showing signs of anti-social behavior they are often removed from public spaces by patrol services delivered by either the Police or Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation.36 Following this removal from a public space, rough sleepers are commonly taken to a 24 hour sobering up shelter and then released back into the community. 37 This means that no sustainable or long-term solution is offered as a means of ending the cycle of homelessness.

A survey of rough sleepers in Darwin in 2010 indicated that they recall being ‘moved on’ as a negative experience and they indicated that this response strategy increases their feelings of social exclusion. 38 This research also recorded positive feedback from rough sleepers about the sobering up shelter as they receive valued supports including a meal and a shower. 39

“We move Aboriginal people around from one temporary spot to another. And then later on we move them on again. We move them on ’cause of the public’s concern of Aboriginal people being in public. But there is nowhere to move them

to” (Senior Street Outreach Worker) 40


Despite these ‘move on’ responses and the ‘law-and-order’ approach being implemented in Darwin for over a decade, there is a strong public perception that Aboriginal public place dwellers, including rough sleepers and homeless people, remain a problem which jeopardises the success of Darwin businesses and tourism.49 Similar public concerns about Aboriginal public place dwellers and rough sleepers have been noted in Katherine and other parts of the NT. 50 This indicates that a different approach to the current short-term ‘move on’ responses is required to address both the concerns of local non-Aboriginal community members as well as needs of rough sleepers and homeless people among the Aboriginal public place dwellers.51

One of the best practice responses to rough sleepers is an Education and Regional Strategy which explains the local protocols to rough sleepers and the need to respect local Traditional Owners when visiting urban centre (e.g. Darwin or Katherine).52 The same strategy could be used to educate non-Aboriginal people and other community stakeholders about the problems of the 'long-grass' lifestyle in order to increase the mutual understanding of obligations in the community for visitors, rough sleepers and permanent residents.

The next section of this report considers the responses used in other jurisdictions to address the needs of rough sleepers as well as community concerns about public place dwellers.

Return to Country programs

Return to Country is a program that is commonly used across Australia to assist Aboriginal people to return to their community. Some of the literature identified Return to Country programs as a kind of 'move on' response because while people are not forced to move on, the overcrowding and social issues in some communities mean that people do not stay there long after they have returned.

The cohort of people who access the Return to Country program are often rough sleepers located in urban areas.42 The reason for this is that Aboriginal people who travel from their community often get ‘stuck’ in urban centres as they are unable to pay for their return trip. An evaluation of the Return to Country program in Queensland indicated that this program can reduce financial burden on homelessness services. However, the study also found that many of the Aboriginal people who accessed the Return to Country program in Queensland had stable accommodation in their communities.43

This research indicates that the success of the Return to Country is based on the assumption that Aboriginal rough sleepers in urban areas have suitable accommodation in their communities. 44 Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation delivers the Return to Country program in the NT and reported to have returned 3,432 Aboriginal rough sleepers to their communities in 2014.45,46 However, there is little evidence to indicate what the long term outcomes of the program are. The available research indicates that ongoing issues with overcrowding in communities means that urban rough sleepers do not necessarily have suitable accommodation when they return to community. 47

Public perception of ‘the problem’ and education strategies

As indicated previously, research in Darwin has indicated that a ‘law-and-order’ approach is commonly used in response to ‘Aboriginal public place dwellers’ who frequently seek shelter in parks and shop-fronts.48 Regardless of whether these public place dwellers are rough sleeping or homeless, they are often fined and moved on by government or police patrols.


3. Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictionsThis ensures that clients are able to develop a support plan that best meets their needs and puts them on a pathway to transitioning out of homelessness.

• The outreach models used in other jurisdictions, such as the Street to Home program, provide long-term accommodation or permanent accommodation for as long as is required for clients to develop sustainable independence. Examples include Street to Home programs in SA and WA in Australia, and Toronto, Canada, which offer long-term accommodation. However, it is noted that SA and WA struggle with moving people into permanent accommodation quickly, due to housing shortages (refer Appendix 4 and 5).

• Some other jurisdictions have tailored their response to homelessness to address the specific needs of Aboriginal clients through trauma informed approaches, delivering cultural well-being programs and acknowledging spiritual homelessness among clients. Examples of this include the Douglas House managed by Mission Australia in Queensland and the Pound Maker’s Lodge in Alberta Canada.

• Some other jurisdictions have tested the use of transitional accommodation as a means of not only linking people with appropriate support services but also as an opportunity for stimulating behaviouralchange (e.g. reduction in alcohol consumption and increase in cultural connection and ceremonial participation). Jimaylya in Mount Isa is an example of this. Jimaylya is also the only identified example of a wet shelter, where people are allowed to consume alcohol as long as they do not have any health conditions or exhibit antisocial behaviour. In Canada, US and Ireland, the Managed Alcohol Programs (MAPs) support homeless people who have severe alcohol dependences to ensure they have opportunities to access safe permanent housing and treatment services.

• Some jurisdictions have made an effort to educate the public about the experience of homeless people. For example, New Zealand’s recent publication of the experiences of homeless people and the Streetlink app in the UK is advertised as a means of enabling the public to assist homelessness services to support rough sleepers (refer Appendix 5).

Key findings from the literature review – responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions

This section identifies a range of policy and program responses to rough sleeping in other jurisdictions. The models in other jurisdictions include variations on the Housing First model, assertive outreach, managed alcohol programs and wet shelters. As part of synthesising this information, a comparison was made between the policies and programs currently delivered in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine regions (refer Section 2) and those delivered in other jurisdictions. There are a number of key differences including the following:

• Most jurisdictions have a longer term focus than the responses to homelessness in the NT. For example, the Housing First-type models such as Common Ground in Qld and SA aim to support clients to transition into permanent accommodation (either rented or public housing). In contrast, the experience with homelessness responses in the NT seems to emphasise more short-term responses, for example, outreach to rough sleepers, overnight stays in sobering-up shelters.

• A number of jurisdictions in Australia and internationally have a focus on Housing First which emphasises personal choice and self-determined care and support for the client with permanent accommodation being offered without any preconditions. Housing First models also include onsite case management and care coordination; and opt-in (non-compulsory) support services (either offered onsite or proximal to accommodation). A number of Housing First programs in Australia and internationally have achieved improvements in the social connectivity and independence of clients; a reduction in the utilisation of crisis and emergency services; and sustained tenancy (refer Appendix 3).

• Some responses to homelessness use a decision support tool to not only identify the chronically homeless but also to prioritise client needs and link them with appropriate support services including, for example, Lethbridgein Alberta Canada. In this context, the decision support tool is usually used by a social worker or case worker who acts as a kind of service coordinator for clients to access supports and work toward sustaining accommodation.


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions

(Source KPMG 2017; Refer to reference list; 57)

Housing First Model

Single site housing with outreach support

Including Common Ground, Practice and Foyer Models

Scattered site housing with outreach support

Including Michael’s Intensive Supported Housing Accord and

Street to Home Models

Crisis Accommodation

Transitional Accommodation

Homelessness

Permanent Housing with ongoing flexible support

Traditional Homelessness Housing Approach

Housing First Approach

Social Housing

(Source KPMG 2017; Refer to reference list; 56)

Figure 6: Approaches to housing homelessness

Figure 7: Housing First models

As discussed previously, the NT approach to rough sleepers focuses on assertive outreach responses. This section of the report describes a number of alternative response to rough sleepers and homeless people, based on a literature review of the response models in other parts of Australia and internationally (e.g. Canada, New Zealand, Finland, USA). Following this description of alternative models in other jurisdictions the report then considers which of these models may be appropriate to addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine, based on the results from the survey.

All Australian jurisdictions (with the exception of the NT) have moved towards offering some form of ‘Housing First’ model wherein people are provided with permanent accommodation without having to satisfy any preconditions (e.g. demonstrating that they are drug or alcohol free). Tenants are then also provided with recovery oriented support services.

The Housing First approach aims to address and prevent repeat homelessness by providing rough sleepers with supportive housing.53

Researchers have noted there is no singular definition of supportive housing, but it is suggested that supportive housing, in contrast to transitional housing, is long term and permanent. As indicated in Figure 6, the Housing First model skips the stages of temporary accommodation that are common to the more traditional responses to homelessness and, instead, offers permanent accommodation (usually in the form of social housing or community housing) with “flexible support services intended to meet a broad array of health and psychosocial needs”.54 This aligns to the best practice responses to Indigenous homelessness described by AHURI (refer page 18) which recommend medium or long-term housing for Aboriginal people at risk of homelessness. However, there are no robust evaluations which indicate that Housing First is necessarily an effective response for Aboriginal people at risk of homelessness or who are rough sleeping.

Typically, the Housing First model is provided in one of two forms: the scattered site housing with outreach support; or the single site housing with outreach support. The outreach support is usually on an ‘opt-in’ basis which is intended to encourage social inclusion and self-determination for clients. 55


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions – Housing First model• There can be no conditions for entry into permanent accommodation so

there is a risk that the properties may be damaged by tenants who are not yet ready to live in permanent accommodation.

• There is limited evidence that the Housing First model is culturally appropriate for Aboriginal rough sleepers because permanent accommodation may not align with the cultural mobility of some Aboriginal groups.

• The recruitment and retention of on site support staff may be difficult, particularly staff that have experience with homelessness, trauma and the Housing First model. This is critical for ensuring that case workers and social workers do not become overwhelmed by their case load and that there is stability in the staff mix for people accessing the services.

• The Housing First model aims to increase self determination through offering tenants choice and the flexibility to either choose to engage with support services or not (excluding Youth Foyer). This requires strong relationships between housing providers and support services. There is also the risk that tenants may refuse to utilise, or engage with, support services.

• While many of the case studies reviewed as part of this project (refer Appendix 4) indicate that Housing First models increase tenants’ ability to sustain a tenancy, there are mixed results on improvements in social participation and health outcomes. Some of the research acknowledges that Housing First alone will not resolve homelessness and a holistic approach, inclusive of social, health and psychological services, is required.

This summary of strengths and limitations for Housing First indicates that this model may not be the sole solution to addressing rough sleepers and homelessness in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine. This assessment is supported by the fact that a number of survey respondents (83%) indicated that they were happy where they were sleeping rough and identified supports which would assist them with being more comfortable and safe. The following section identifies some service models which have proven somewhat effective in meeting the needs of Aboriginal people.

The Housing First model has proven to be effective both internationally and within Australia. A number of evaluations of Housing First models have indicated that it is a successful model for addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people to sustain long term/ permanent housing.58

The white paper Road Home and the National Affordable Housing Agreement (the White Paper) which considered responses to homelessness nationally in Australia also emphasised the need to provide permanent accommodation options to address homelessness. In doing so, the white paper acknowledged the benefits of the Housing First model and Street to Home.59

Strengths of Housing First

• A number of Housing First models in Australia show that rough sleepers can sustain long term tenancy.

• The ‘opt-in’ approach to providing support services to tenants has been successful in a number of locations as it builds trust between tenants and support staff and supports tenants for self-directed and self-determined improvement.

• The single site model of Housing First provides safety for tenants as it offers 24 hour security as well as onsite support staff.

• The Housing First model was specifically developed as a means of addressing the needs of the chronically homeless and recognizes that many long-term homeless people have personal trauma.

• The inclusion of onsite support staff as part of the model means that there can be better coordination of care and supports as well as better tailoring of support ‘packages’ to meet the unique needs of individual tenants, particularly those with complex needs and mental health conditions.

• Some of the Housing First models e.g. Youth Foyer and Street to Home, are targeted at particular cohorts of people including children and rough sleepers.

Limitations of Housing First

• The Housing First model requires the availability of quality accommodation that is equipped to a modest standard and culturally appropriate.


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions – Indigenous homelessness The following section of the report considers responses to homelessness that have been used as part of Indigenous specific responses to homelessness. These responses include Managed Alcohol Programs (MAPs), a ‘wet shelter’ operating in Mount Isa, QLD and the Douglas House practice model developed by Mission Australia. Figure 8 provides an overview of these responses.

Managed Alcohol Programs (MAPs) Wet shelters Trauma Informed

Unique and specific responses to address Indigenous homelessness complexities

MAPs are designed to support homeless people with severe and intractable alcohol dependence. Clients receive a regulated amount of alcohol at set times in conjunction with alcohol managed plans. Canada is leading the delivery of MAPs as a response to homelessness, with a number of MAPs set up across the country. While most MAPs are not designed specifically for Indigenous people, they do address the needs of Indigenous homeless people because, as in Australia, alcohol and drug dependency is a common issue for Aboriginal people in Canada.

Similar to MAPs, wet shelters are also designed to support homeless people with severe and intractable alcohol dependence. Clients receive a regulated amount of alcohol at set times. However, research in Canada indicates that the difference between MAPs and wet shelters is that MAPs have alcohol management plans whereas wet shelters do not. This means that MAPs have a structured approach to alcohol rehabilitation. Despite, the lack of a structured alcohol management plan, wet shelters have reported positive outcomes for homeless people, these include Jimaylya TopsyHarry Centre in QLD and wet shelters in the US and Ireland.

Mission Australia’s, Douglas House has developed a practice model that focuses on cultural safety as part of a transitional accommodation model. Douglas House delivers support services to clients with a trauma informed response. This practice model was developed based on the staff observation that the predominantly Indigenous clientele had severe mental health issues and individual or intergenerational trauma. A recent evaluation attributed the success of the model to the trained recovery staff who provide physical, mental, emotional and psychological care to tenants to support them in securing and sustaining permanent housing.

Figure 8 : A number of responses to Indigenous homeless

Source: KPMG (2018)


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions – Managed Alcohol Programs

What?

As discussed on the previous page, MAPs are designed to support homeless people with severe and intractable alcohol dependence. Clients receive a regulated amount of alcohol at set times in conjunction with alcohol managed plans. Why?

Many homeless people are plagued by alcoholism. It was estimated that homeless people residing in inner Sydney with alcohol dependency consume “over 20 standard drinks a day; often non-beverage alcohol (mouthwash) and drinks until unconscious”. They also place a high burden on hospitals and police and are subjected to assaults when drinking on the street. As one researcher acknowledged, “while abstinence from alcohol is preferred, it is unrealistic for a minority of chronic drinkers”. 60

Is it working?

This literature review found limited evidence of MAPs in Australia as most shelters and housing programs targeted at addressing the needs of homeless people in Australia are alcohol free. However, Anglicare in SA is currently proposing to build a 24 bed managed alcohol program for Indigenous people who are chronically homeless.

A feasibility study for the establishment of a MAP in Sydney was also recently undertaken. The findings of the feasibility study in Sydney are shown in the case study at right and more information about the MAP in rural Queensland is provided overleaf.

Evaluations of MAPs in Toronto and Ottawa in Canada (which have a high proportion of Aboriginal clients) indicated that MAPs can improve health, enhance quality of life, reduce police and emergency health service contacts, and reduce the harms of drinking.

Case Study: Feasibility of a Managed Alcohol Program for Sydney homeless, 201561

The Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education funded a feasibility study to determine whether a Managed Alcohol Program might be a suitable way in which to engage homeless or alcohol dependent people in Sydney who do not currently access, or response to, exiting services.

The feasibility study included a systematic literature review and a survey of eligible homeless alcohol dependent residents of the inner Sydney short stay alcohol withdrawal service.

Literature review

Although the scientific quality of the evidence is weak, the literature reviewedstrongly suggests that MAPs may offer an important intervention for chronically homeless and alcohol dependent adults. Homeless, alcohol dependentindividuals are subject to service barriers and are at increased risk of co‐occurring and often untreated medical issues. The MAP model has been successfullyestablished in Canada and the USA to address the health and social needs of this population.

Survey

The survey was delivered to 51 participants, 25% of whom identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. The participants were surveyed about four MAP models:

1. Day shelter with bring-your-own-alcohol

2. Day shelter with one alcoholic drink provided every hour for 15 hours a day

3. Residential facility with bring-your-own alcohol

4. Residential facility with one alcoholic drink provided every hour for 15 hours a day.

The survey reported the following key findings:

• The majority of respondents showed strong interest in MAP with a preference for residential model.

• Approximately 90% of respondents’ who preferred model 3 above, were willing to pay a proportion of their income (at least 25%) for the service.

• In terms of location, there was a preference for an inner city/Kings Cross area location (around a third preferred outside the city).


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions – Wet Shelterthat 50% of clients sustained their tenancy over an 8 month period between 2011-2012.

Although the evaluation was not aimed at measuring the longer term benefits of Jimaylya, it did report that long term tenants, who are mostly heavy drinkers, did not transition into public housing as they were not looking for work or a house.64

Design

The design of Jimaylya is centered around Aboriginal culture, the accommodation includes a number of outdoor semi-enclosed sleeping shelters, single men rooms (in the men’s quarters), dormitory style sleeping for women (in the women's quarters), three bedroom house for couples in crisis and six bed room houses for clients transitioning into rental housing.65

Strengths

• Management’s style is culturally appropriate exhibiting a ‘tough love’ approach to managing clients who do not cooperate with Jimaylya’srules e.g. alcohol restrictions apply when a tenant’s health is compromised. 66

• Culturally tailored design and function of Jimaylya including Indigenous staff and practising Indigenous tradition; smoking of deceased client’s accommodation and taking clients on recreational fishing trips.

• Controlled dinking shows positive results and promotes independence.

• Homeless people can better access homelessness services, as generally they avoid dry shelters to consume alcohol.

• Jimaylya employs Indigenous staff.

Weaknesses

• For the Jimaylya model to work, there needs to be a strong pipeline of available housing stock for rent.

Jimaylya Topsy Harry Centre (Mt Isa, QLD)

What?

Established in 2003, Jimaylya Topsy Harry Centre (Jimaylya) is a unique shelter in Australia, offering homeless people over 18 years of age a safe and controlled environment to consume their own alcohol as a frontline treatment for alcoholism. The shelter provides short and long term accommodation with case management and other onsite services including education and counselling. Jimaylya relies on a range of inter-agency cooperation to deliver case management to tenants.

Jimaylya is designed to encourage social support with a compassionate spiritual Alcohol Anonymous framework that encourages small group harmony, drinking in moderation and group control of internal behavior. Jimaylya aims to support the transition of rough sleepers from crisis accommodation to public housing. Those tenants who are on the waiting list for public housing must attend specific TAFE sessions such as cooking, cleaning, budgeting and yard maintenance skills. The sessions are also available for other clients in Jimaylya. 62

Why?

The QLD government recognised a gap in services for homelessness Indigenous people in Mount Isa who have long term substance abuse problems. It was also acknowledged that many homeless people with alcohol dependency had moved to Mount Isa as a consequence of the introduction of alcohol restrictions in central NT. 63

Is it working?

Jimaylya has been in operation for 14 years and operates according to three core principles: 1) accommodation leading to housing; 2) harm minimisation; and 3) cultural maintenance and the building of social capital and resilience.

An evaluation of Jimaylya in 2012 found that the positive effects of controlled drinking for homeless people increased levels of social participation, reduced alcohol consumption and modified drinking behavior. The evaluation reported


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions – Wet Shelter• The more recent evaluation of Jimayalya found that clients can cycle back

through Jimaylya and not necessarily progress through the housing continuum. 67

• It is difficult to enforce alcohol consumption rules and staff receive abuse when implementing them.

• Some clients leave the premises to consume alcohol elsewhere without breaking Jimaylya rules.


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions – Douglas House known.69 In addition, anecdotal observations from staff indicated that there had been a decrease in the number of hospital emergency visits, a reduction in police intervention, and an increase in the ability of tenants to seek support to set boundaries. 70

Strengths

• Culturally responsive approach where there are significant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rough sleepers.

• Facilitation of a pre-recovery stage embedded into a holistic wellbeing approach to support those who have experienced trauma and have complex needs of homelessness. 71

• The recovery and staff support approach increases trust, relationships, hope and self-determination of tenants.

Weaknesses

• The success of the model is highly driven by the uniqueness of the facility and staff alignment with the model’s vision and values. To replicate this model in other locations would require having similarly dedicated staff whose values are aligned with the vision of a holistic approach to achieving the best for each individual, as determined by the individual.

• The Douglas House practice model is an evolving model that has not been operational for a long period of time so it is not possible to say with certainty how sustainable the outcomes are at this stage. Further research is recommended to capture a more detailed blueprint of the model and enable a greater opportunity for replication and more in-depth evaluation of outcomes.

Douglas House and Woree House (Cairns, QLD)

What?

Douglas House aims to assist residents to achieve self-reliance and independence in order to maintain transitional accommodation. The Douglas House practice model is centered around a culturally responsive and trauma informed approach to working with long term homeless people and rough sleepers. People at risk of homelessness are offered stable accommodation for at least 6 months and an opportunity to address their problems e.g. drug addiction, alcohol management or mental illness. The trauma informed methodology has three principles:

• strengths - reframing trauma to enable feelings of resilience;

• recovery - responding to the complexities of homeless people including the intersect between mental health, substance abuse, and the criminal justice system; and

• culturally responsive - focus on cultural safety; developing partnership/relationship; including Aboriginal governance/coordination; ensuring adequate/equitable funding; employing Aboriginal staff; facilitating cultural reconnection; and engagement in research/evaluation on best practices.

Why?

The Douglas House practice model was developed based on the needs of the long term homeless in the local area which is approximately 71% Indigenous and had previously shown evidence of a high level of personal trauma.68

Is it working?

An evaluation by James Cook University in March 2017 indicated that the Douglas House practice model had been successful in terms of maintaining the stability of tenants. A sample of 37 people who had been residents for more than 91 days showed 28 exited the program, with 20 of those former residents securing some form of suitable accommodation. The remaining 8 moved into health and aged care facilities, prison or their location was not


Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions – international responses The table below provides an overview of international responses to homelessness. The case studies for each of these jurisdictions are provided in Appendix 5. Canada and New Zealand are considered in more detail due to these countries having a similar demographic profile in terms of addressing the needs of Indigenous rough sleepers. The United States (US), the United Kingdom (UK) and parts of Europe are also explored to gain insights into their homelessness responses.

Responses Canada New Zealand US UK/Europe Darwin/Katherine

Housing First

Managed Alcohol Programs / Wet Shelters

Culturally specific responses

Transitional accommodation

?Yet to be implemented

Table 5– Jurisdictional comparison of rough sleeper responses

Source KPMG 2017

4. Survey of rough sleepers


Key findings from the survey of rough sleepers

This section of the report provides the high level findings from a survey of rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine. The survey was designed to be culturally appropriate and client centred for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who are experiencing homelessness and sleeping rough, in order to identify:

• key drivers of homelessness amongst people who are sleeping rough in Darwin/Palmerston and Katherine;

• previous housing/homelessness history of clients surveyed;

• support needs to assist people who are sleeping rough to transition out of homelessness; and

• contact with other service systems, including health and accommodation, in the previous 12 months

The results in the following pages show that during December 2017-January 2018 the profile for rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine included a large cohort of people who are over the age of 35 years and predominantly Aboriginal with approximately 99% of survey respondents identifying as Aboriginal.

Survey respondents identified a range of reasons for leaving the last place that they were in and sleeping rough in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine, including boredom, seeing family, taking a break or holiday and leaving community because of ‘anti-social’ behaviour. Often access to alcohol is related to the reason for sleeping rough, for example, taking a holiday and having easier access to alcohol in town for a while.

Whilst housing still rates as a significant reason for seeking Specialist Homelessness Services (28.4% of people accessing Specialist Homelessness Services in the NT) the majority of survey respondents were not on the public housing wait list (87% of survey respondents) and were happy where they were (83% of survey respondents). This indicates that accommodation and housing is not the only kind of support required to address the needs of rough

Survey of rough sleeperssleepers and homeless people. Instead, what is required is a suite of options which provide choice to rough sleepers and support the broad spectrum of needs of people sleeping rough.

When asked the question, “where do you see yourself in 12 months time?”, survey respondents provided multiple responses. Many survey respondents identified ‘accommodation’ as the place in which they saw themselves in 12 months. However, this same cohort of survey respondents also identified that they would be going back to country or in the same place / situation in 12 months from now. This indicates the transient and cyclical nature of some of the survey respondents lives and the need for supports that enable them to maintain quality of life and wellbeing while they are sleeping rough, in order to ensure that they can autonomously return to country and/or seek accommodation.

Survey respondents identified a number of supports which could assist them to address their concerns about comfort, safety and quality of sleep. The most commonly identified supports across Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine were shelter, toilets and showers, followed closely by bedding and food services.

The next section of the report provides the themes from focus groups in which these options were further refined.


Some survey respondents described the reasons that they could not get a job or retain employment. The main reasons identified included the following:

• Lack of suitable / stable accommodation (n=8, 27%)

• It’s hard to find a job and keep it (n=7, 23%)

• Health problems (n=3, 10%)

• Not given a chance to work (n=3, 10%)

• Family problems (n=2, 7%)

The majority of survey respondents (n=348, 88%) indicated that they did not want to work. Some survey respondents provided reasons for not wanting to work, a few survey respondents declined to answer (n=10). The reasons identified for not wanting work included the following:

• Not able to work (n=131, 38%)This includes 76 survey respondents in Darwin, 36 in Katherine and 19 in Palmerston.

• Too much alcohol or grog sickness (n=53, 12%)This includes 14 survey respondents in Darwin, 33 in Katherine and 6 in Palmerston

• Happy with basics card or Centrelink benefits and just don’t want to work (n=47, 10%) This includes 30 survey respondents in Darwin, 5 in Katherine and 12 in Palmerston.

• Can’t find work (n=28, 8%). This includes 18 survey respondents in Darwin, 7 in Katherine and 3 in Palmerston.

• Need suitable / stable accommodation (n=21, 5%). This includes 13 survey respondents in Darwin, 3 in Katherine and 5 in Palmerston

• Family issues or having young children (n=10, 2%). This includes 8 survey respondents in Darwin and 2 in Palmerston

Demography of survey respondents

Over the course of the five week survey, a total of 396 homeless people and rough sleepers were surveyed in Darwin (n=231), Palmerston (n=61) and Katherine (n=104).

In the sample of 396 people, 393 people identified as Aboriginal, 2 people identified as Torres Strait Islander and 1 person identified as being non-aboriginal.

Overall, the majority of people surveyed were men (71%, n=280). However, this varied based on location as follows:

• Darwin: 64% men, 36% female

• Katherine: 85% men, 15% female

• Palmerston: 74% men, 26% female

The age range for survey respondents varied in each location but the majority of people surveyed were aged between 30 and 55. The majority of women were aged 35 to 50 whereas there was a younger cohort of men with 14% aged 30-35. Refer to Appendix 6 for the full analysis of age range and gender.

The majority of survey respondents were single (62%, n=244) with 32% married (n=127), 4% widowed (n=15), 2% promised to someone (n=5), and 1% defacto (n=2). There was also one person who identified as being separated from their partner, another who identified as a cultural lawman and one person who preferred not to discuss their marital status.

Income and employment

The majority of survey respondents do not receive income from employment (96%, n= 380) and 4% are employed and receiving income (n=11 in Darwin and n=3 in Katherine).

Of the survey respondents who do not receive income from employment, 8% would like to have a job (n=30) with 9 survey respondents in Katherine, 2 in Palmerston and 19 in Darwin saying that they would like to have a job.

Survey of rough sleepers


The majority of the survey respondents indicated that their income supported themselves alone (n=336, 85%). This includes 180 survey respondents in Darwin, 102 in Katherine and 54 in Palmerston. A further 7% indicated that their income supported their Partner (n=29, all in Darwin) - this includes one person who receives income from employment. Approximately 7% indicated that their income supported family and children. This includes 19 survey respondents in Darwin, 2 in Katherine and 6 in Palmerston. Of the survey respondents who said that they were supporting family and children, 5 people indicated that they were receiving income from employment.

Place of origin or ‘home’ community

Survey participants were asked about where they grew up or came from and where they were born. In the majority of cases (n=328, 83%), people grew up in the same area that they were born in, whether it be a regional centre such as Tennant Creek or a Regional/Remote area. The majority of survey respondents grew up in regional/remote areas (n=274, 69%), 16% grew up in Katherine and 6% in Darwin. A further 4% grew up in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek respectively.

Survey respondents were also asked about their home country. The responses to this question varied greatly and survey respondents identified a wide range of communities as their ‘home’ community.

In Darwin, approximately 92% (n=212) of survey respondents were from elsewhere. The majority of these survey respondents (n=161) grew up in a regional or remote area. In Katherine, approximately 76% (n=78) of survey respondents were from elsewhere and the majority (n=67) grew up in a regional or remote area. Similarly, in Palmerston, approximately 98% (n=60) of survey respondents were from elsewhere and most survey respondents (n=46) grew up in a regional or remote area.

The communities commonly identified by survey respondents in Darwin as their ‘home country’ included the Tiwi Islands (n=38, 16%), Katherine (n=26, 11%), Wadeye / Port Keats (n=20, 9%), Belyuen (n=14 , 6%) and Barunga (n=12, 5%).

• Left the Community Development Programme (CDP) (n=24, 7%) because of lack of work, family reasons or lack of accommodation. This includes 17 survey respondents in Darwin, 5 in Katherine and 2 in Palmerston.

• Have been unemployed for a long period or not ready to work (n=10, 3%). This includes 6 survey respondents in Darwin and 4 in Palmerston.

• Sorry business (n=6, 2%). This includes 4 survey respondents in Darwin, 1 in Katherine and 1 in Palmerston.

A few survey respondents also said they were happy not working and a few also identified ‘humbugging’ as the reason that they did not want a job because they would lose their money to family or friends (humbugging is discussed in more detail in Section 4.

The reasons that people provided for not being able to work (n=131) included the following:

• For health reasons (n=51, 39%)

• On special benefits or sickness benefits (n=36, 27%)

• Have a disability (n=17, 13%)

• Too old (n=18, 14%) or on aged pension (n=2, 2%) or other pension (n=7, 5%)

Most people who said that they were too old to work were aged between 50 and 55 (n=10) however a few were aged 45-50 (n=4) or over 55 (n=4).

The majority of the survey respondents indicated that they were receiving government subsidies of some kind (n=379, 96%). This includes 10 people who already have a job. The majority of people receive money from Centrelink only (n=365, 96%) and the remainder receive money from a mixture of Centrelink and other sources such as begging, family, superannuation, gambling or royalties.

The survey respondents who did not receive money from other sources and did not have a job (n=15) indicated that they were surviving through busking, begging, friends and / or family.



.The ‘home’ communities for Katherine included Katherine (n=24, 23%), Barunga (n=9, 9%), Kalkarindji (n=9, 9%), Ngukurr (n=8, 8%) and Beswick / Wugular (n=7, 7%). The most commonly identified ‘home’ communities for Palmerston were Ali Curung (n=6, 10%), Yuendumu (n=6, 10%), Lajamanu (n=5, 8%), Nauiyu (n=5, 8%) and Alice Springs (n=5, 8%).

Length of time rough sleeping for survey respondents

This section of the report provides key findings relating to length of time survey respondents have been homeless, the common places for sleeping, concerns while sleeping rough and the supports identified as necessary for helping people to either address these concerns or transition out of homelessness.

Figure 9 overleaf shows that the majority of people surveyed have been homeless for more than 12 months (n=216, 55%). Approximately 27% have been homeless for 6-12 months (n=106), 7% have been homeless for 3-6 months (n=27), 10% have been homeless for 1-3 months (n=38) and 1% have been homeless for less than a month (n=5).

Appendix 6 provides a breakdown of the length of time that survey respondents have been rough sleeping in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine respectively (refer Figure A6.5 – A6.7 in Appendix 6).



Figure 9: Length of time sleeping rough or being homeless in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine

Source: KPMG 2018 based on data collected by CCC



doing the humbugging have substance abuse issues because people do not respect the kinship structure when struggling to meet the needs of addiction.

•Overcrowding in community houses can contribute to anti-social behaviour because older people may have no escape from demanding children and grandchildren. Survey respondents indicated that living in crowded houses where there is no privacy and where residents and visitors feel free to take whatever food and drinks are available, can be stressful and make it difficult to care for family. Older survey respondents indicated that they still want to live with children and grandchildren but the behaviour of their younger family members makes it very difficult and they feel as if there is no place in their community for old people to live safely. Older survey respondents also identified that there are aged care facilities open during the day but nothing at night. Survey respondents also indicated that they are no longer able to control their children and grandchildren because their traditional systems of punishment are no longer allowed.

•Jealousy is often created and then driven by social media and can cause enormous conflict in communities. Arguments caused by jealousy are regular events. For example, someone in community might gossip or make a comment on social media and then the young people, particularly the women, start fighting. This can quickly escalate into a wide-ranging conflict involving all members of the community. In the context of Aboriginal culture, there are no mechanisms to bring this conflict under control in a relatively short time. Often people will leave community until the conflict quietens down, if their children are involved.

•Payback was talked about by survey respondents in the context of “sorcery”. An example of sorcery could be blaming someone for a particular event. Sorcery is often used as a form of payback where physical punishment is either not possible, or the offender is already in custody. It can cause enormous stress to all family members who are included in the circle of blame. When people are accused/blamed

Survey of rough sleepersReasons identified for becoming homeless or sleeping rough

Survey respondents identified multiple reasons for beginning to sleep rough or leaving the place that they were in. The most commonly identified reasons included visiting family, boredom and taking a holiday or a break. Medical care was also a commonly identified reason. In the context of the survey respondents, medical care related to family members as well as the survey respondent themselves.

Anti-social behaviour was also often identified as a reason that people left the last place they were in and moved into Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine. Based on advice from the survey respondents, anti-social behaviour covers a complex set of behaviours including people throwing public tantrums, in which they accuse other people in the community of not meeting their needs. For some of the survey respondents, this kind of verbal violence has manifest into physical violence such as damaging property, (e.g. houses and cars) or assaulting people. This kind of anti-social behaviour can result in people either having to leave community because they have behaved in an “anti-social” way or because they have been the victim of anti-social behaviour.

Following are a series of factors which can contribute to anti-social behaviour in community and were identified by survey respondents:

• “Humbugging” which refers to unreasonable or excessive demands from family, can be relentless for some Aboriginal people in community. This is particularly the case for young men and women. Survey respondents said that humbugging can be overwhelming and can cause a lot of stress and family conflict. Survey respondents also indicated that the humbugging for money was often for the purposes of acquiring drugs, mobile phone credit or personal desires. For older survey respondents, who are looking after multiple family members, the demands on their limited resources can become very stressful. In this situation, some people just run away and end up sleeping rough in a situation that they consider to be less stressful, and often safer. In this situation, the distribution of resources that underpins the Aboriginal kinship structure has broken down because more has been taken rather than given. This often happens when the people


Survey of rough sleepersfor someone’s death or illness, they may relocate as far from their home community as possible. For months, people in the circle of blame will try to remain as unobtrusive as possible until they are advised that someone else has paid the ‘payback’ price for the event that they have been blamed for. People will often not return to their home community, and may sleep rough during that time, until they are guaranteed that the payback or sorcery business is finished.

Domestic violence was also identified by 5% of survey respondents as the reason that they began sleeping rough. While this is not a high proportion of survey respondents, it does align with findings in the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Specialist homelessness services annual report 2016–17 which indicated that the specialist homelessness services in the NT had experienced a 14% annual average growth in the use of services by victims of domestic and family violence.72

A final point regarding the context for reviewing this section is to consider the significant role that alcohol has in communities of rough sleepers. The impact of alcohol was not the focus of this piece of consultation and research has already been undertaken regarding this social issue and the Aboriginal people of the NT.73

However, it should be noted that where survey respondents identified ‘to see family’, ‘boredom’ or ‘holiday’ as the reason for leaving the last place they were in, these circumstances often involved drinking with family, friends or ‘mob’. The tables on the following pages provide an overview of the reasons identified by survey respondents in each geography.

Reasons identified in Darwin Number of survey respondents

To see family 100

Boredom 95

To take a break / holiday 91

Medical care 45

Anti-social behaviour 40

Sorry business 10

Too much fighting 10

Domestic violence 8

Alcohol, grog or wanting to drink alcohol 4

Payback 4

Jealousy 3

Homeless 3

Shopping 3

Lost house or eviction 2

Men’s business or women’s business 1

Table 6: Reasons for beginning to sleep rough or leaving the last place the survey respondent was in before coming to Darwin



Table 7: Reasons for beginning to sleep rough or leaving the last place the survey respondent was at before coming to Palmerston


Reason for becoming homeless - Palmerston Number of survey respondents


To see family 22

Boredom 13

Drugs 8

Medical care 7


Jealousy 7

Too much fighting 4

Humbug 4

Sorry business 3

Alcohol, grog or wanting to drink alcohol 3

Overcrowding 2

Payback 1

Domestic violence 1

Ran away 1

Table 8: Reasons for beginning to sleep rough or leaving the last place the survey respondent was at before coming to Katherine


Reason for becoming homeless -Katherine

Number of survey respondents

To see family 41


Boredom 18

Alcohol, grog or wanting to drink alcohol

12

Domestic Violence 8

Medical care 6

Sorry business 6

Too much fighting 1

Jealousy 1

Men’s business or women’s business

1

Overcrowding 2




Overall, 58 survey respondents (15%) indicated that they were not happy where they were and 10 survey respondents (3%) preferred not to say.

Table 10 below shows the key reasons that people identified for not being happy where they were.

It is interesting to note that of the 23 people who said that they were unhappy sleeping rough because they wanted accommodation, only 4 accessed accommodation services. One of the 4 survey respondents, identified sleeping on the ground as the key reason that they were unhappy with where they were, and another identified safety as a key reason.

This cohort of people who were not happy where they were, were also asked what would make them stop sleeping rough or help them to get out of the current situation. Table 11 overleaf shows the supports that 51 of the survey respondents identified as key to getting them to stop sleeping rough. Many people mentioned accommodation or shelter of some description including “a safe place” or “my own place” but did not elaborate on what this might look like.

Survey responses to ‘Are you happy sleeping rough?’

When asked whether they were happy where they were, the majority of survey respondents said that they were happy. The high level results for whether survey respondents are happy where they are as follows:

• 83% of survey respondents overall were happy where they were (n=328)

• 81% of survey respondents in Darwin were happy where they were (n=188)

• 70% of survey respondents in Palmerston were happy where they were (n=43)

• 93% of survey respondents in Katherine were happy whether they were (n=97)

Table 9 shows the most common reasons people identified for being happy where they were.

Reasons that survey respondents were not happy where they were


Want own place or accommodation 23

Need bedding, sleeping on the ground 6

Don’t feel safe 4

Want to go home 3

Table 10: Reasons that survey respondents were not happy where they were (all surveyed)



Reasons that survey respondentswere happy where they were


With family and / or same mob 116

With friends and / or same mob 97

No humbug from people to buy drink or provide money

50

Just happy or think it is good 51

No fighting 7

Share everything 9

Table 9: Reasons that survey respondents were happy where they were (all surveyed)



were. For example, safety, comfort, health and quality of sleep were raised as concerns by survey respondents from both cohorts. The most common worries identified are shown in the tables below and overleaf.

Approximately 25% of people surveyed (n=98) indicated that nothing worried them while sleeping rough. This cohort includes 53 survey respondents in Darwin (23%), 28 survey respondents in Katherine (22%) and 17 survey respondents in Palmerston (28%).

The survey data indicates that across all three geographies, rough sleepers are concerned about similar issues relating to their wellbeing and security (refer to Appendix 6 for a geographical breakdown). The following pages of the report identify the key supports that people identified to either support them with addressing these concerns while sleeping rough or to transition out of homelessness.

Of the survey respondents who indicated they were not happy where they were, only 11 survey respondents were on the public housing wait list. This is thought to be due to both the humbugging that can often occur for people with a public housing tenancy but possibly also because people do not know how to apply for public housing or whether they are eligible for this service.

The next part of the report describes the key worries or concerns that people have while sleeping rough, before describing the key supports that people identified to either support them with sleeping rough or to transition out of homelessness.

Survey respondents’ concerns or worries while sleeping rough

Survey respondents identified multiple concerns or worries with sleeping rough. Similar concerns were raised by both people who were happy with where they were and those that were not happy with where they

Supports that could stop people sleeping rough


Accommodation 22

Housing 6

Good bedding and shower 5

Proper place to live 5

Own place 4

Support services and outreach services 1

Health care for children in community 1

Hostel 1

Going home 1

Table 11: Supports that could stop people sleeping rough, identified by those people who were not happy where they were (all surveyed)


Concerns when sleeping rough – all survey respondents


Safety 224

Comfort 114

Health 109

Quality of sleep 106

Loneliness 16

Humbug 11

Accommodation 2

Weather 5

Table 12: Concerns while sleeping rough, identified by survey respondents (all surveyed)




Supports for rough sleepers

Survey respondents identified multiple supports that could help them with sleeping rough improving their safety, comfort, health and/or quality of sleep, which were the key concerns identified by both people who were happy where they were and people who were not. Tables 13-15 show the common types of supports identified by survey respondents in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

The most commonly identified supports across Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine were shelter, toilets and showers, followed closely by bedding and food services. A key difference between the three geographies is the number of survey respondents who identified health advice, laundry services and recharging facilities as key supports for sleeping rough. These supports were identified by more than 60 survey respondents in Darwin but only a few in Palmerston and Katherine. Service providers in Katherine indicated that it is possible that survey respondents didn’t identify lockers, storage facilities or laundry services as supports because they do not know that these services were an option.

Type of support - Darwin Number of survey respondents

Shelter 205

Toilets 205

Showers 204

Bedding 143

Food services 83

Laundry 79

Health advice 71

Non-perishable food 67

Lockers or storage facilities 64

Toiletries 62

Kitchen facilities 62

Recharging facilities 62

Table 13: Supports identified by survey respondents in Darwin


Type of support - Palmerston Number of survey respondents

Shelter 52

Bedding 34

Showers 31

Toilets 29

Food services 14

Non-perishable food 8

Toiletries 3

Recharging facilities 2

Laundry 1

Lockers or storage facilities 1


Survey of rough sleepersTable 14: Supports identified by survey respondents in Palmerston


None of the survey respondents in Katherine identified recharging facilities as a key support. This may be because so few survey respondents in Katherine have access to a mobile phone.

Type of support – Katherine Number of survey respondents

Shelter 84

Bedding 72

Toilets 67

Showers 63

Food services 6

Laundry 3

Health advice 3

Toiletries 3

Kitchen facilities 1

Table 15: Supports identified by survey respondents in Katherine


Survey of rough sleepersService utilisation

The information below provides a high level overview of the range and type of service utilisation by rough sleepers. A detailed breakdown of the types of service providers identified in the three locations is provided in Appendix 6.

Mobile phone

Approximately 21% of all survey respondents have a mobile phone (n=85) and 98% use it to contact family. However, survey respondents’ access to mobile phones varied greatly depending on the geography. Only 4 survey respondents in Katherine indicated that they have access to a mobile phone (4%) and 10 survey respondents in Palmerston (16%) whereas in Darwin 71 survey respondents (31%) indicated that they have access to a mobile phone.

Transport

The use of transport services also varied greatly depending on where the area surveyed. The high level results were as follows:

•In Darwin, 46% of survey respondents (n=106) indicated that they use transport services including public transport, taxis and the Day/Night Patrol provided by Larrakia Nation.

•In Palmerston, 43% of survey respondents (n=26) indicated that they use transport services including public transport, taxi and the Day/Night Patrol provided by Larrakia Nation.

•In Katherine, two (2) survey respondents indicated that they use public transport services. One (1) person identified the Bodhi bus as a transport provider and two (2) other people identified Wurli Wurlinjang as a transport provider.

Free meal service

The majority of survey respondents are accessing free meal services (n=356, 90%). Many survey respondents identified more than one


provider. In Palmerston, a number of people said that they were accessing a free meal service through family and friends rather than a designated provider.

Accommodation

Approximately 17% of survey respondents are accessing accommodation services (n=67).

The most commonly identified accommodation providers in Darwin were as follows:

• Mission Australia (n=24, 10% of Darwin cohort) and

• Salvation Army (n=11, 5% of Darwin cohort).

In Palmerston, only one survey respondent indicated that they were accessing accommodation services, through Mission Australia.

The most commonly identified accommodation service providers in Katherine were as follows:

• Catholic Care (n=8, 8% of Katherine cohort); and

• the Strongbala program (n=2, 2% of Katherine cohort).

Public housing wait list

Approximately 13% of survey respondents (n=51) are on the public housing wait list. This includes 37 survey respondents in Darwin and 14 in Katherine. None of the people surveyed in Palmerston indicated that they were on the public housing wait list.

As discussed earlier, only 11 of the survey respondents who were not happy where they were had applied for a public housing tenancy. A total of 18 survey respondents indicated that they use accommodation services and are on the public housing wait list (15 in Darwin, 3 in Katherine) which indicates that there were approximately 33 survey respondents who were on the public housing waiting list but were not accessing accommodation services and were sleeping rough in the interim. It is not clear why there are so few people on the housing wait list.

It may be due to any of the following reasons:

•Rough sleepers may already be challenged by their day-to-day living arrangements which could make the process for getting on the public housing wait list too arduous;

•Rough sleepers may be avoiding the humbug of having family and friends come and stay with them in their public housing tenancy;

•Some rough sleepers may equate public housing with overcrowding; and

•Some rough sleepers may not want a house or the obligation of public housing.

Health and other services

The majority of survey respondents are accessing health services (n=378, 95%). Many survey respondents identified more than one provider. The most commonly identified health service providers in each location are provided in Appendix 6. Approximately 93% of the survey respondents who indicated that health advice would assist them while sleeping rough are already accessing health services (n=69).

Approximately 41% of survey respondents indicated that they use a clothing service provider. The proportion of people using clothing services was slightly higher in Katherine (n=64, 62%) than in Darwin (n=94, 41%) and much higher than Palmerston (n=5, 8%).

Overall, 7% of survey respondents indicated that they were accessing mental health services (n=29). In Darwin, 11 survey respondents indicated that they were accessing mental health services. In Palmerston, only one survey respondent indicated that they were accessing mental health services and, in Katherine, 17 survey respondents indicated that they were accessing mental health services.



Survey responses to ‘Where do you see yourself in 12 months time?’

When asked the question, “where do you see yourself in 12 months time?”, survey respondents provided multiple responses. In Darwin, for example, the most commonly identified future situation was ‘accommodation’ (refer Table 16). However, this same cohort also identified that they would be going back to country or in the same place / situation in 12 months from now. This possibly indicates the transient and cyclical nature of some of the survey respondents lives. For example, they may go back to country, stay in accommodation for a time and be in the same situation (i.e. sleeping rough) within a 12 month period. The most commonly identified future situations are provided for each geography in Tables 16-18.


Possible future situations - Darwin Number of survey respondents

Accommodation 146

Same place / situation 127

Return to country 106

Closer to family 24

Employed 9

Training / Education / Employment 3

Table 16: Possible future situations - Darwin


Possible future situations - Palmerston Number of survey respondents

Accommodation 42



Closer to family 6

Training / Education / Employment 3

Table 17: Possible future situations - Palmerston


Possible future situations - Katherine Number of survey respondents


Accommodation 38


Closer to family 12

Employed 4

Table 18: Possible future situations - Katherine


The fact that survey respondents identified a range of ‘future scenarios’ in which they may be working, training or returning to country indicates that there needs to be appropriate supports in place to assist rough sleepers to autonomously improve their own wellbeing or move on from Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine.

The next section of the report explores the practicalities of implementing the supports identified during the survey through testing them in focus groups with rough sleepers and service providers.

5. Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providers


Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providerscould be a difficult demand profile to manage in a sustainable way but it may also be that residents will choose to stay longer when they have access to ‘opt-in’ services.

A key support that both service providers and rough sleepers identified, was the need for a kind of assertive outreach model such as Street to Home, which offers referrals into support services and also accommodation. Whilst this program operates in Darwin it is often limited in its ability to meet demand for the service and to refer into available accommodation. Neither Palmerston or Katherine have an outreach service model and even if they did there is not enough accommodation to address referrals. To inform any future decisions about the development of a managed hostel-like facility in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine, the next section of the report provides demand estimates for a managed accommodation model as well as the estimated annual operating costs for this kind of facility.

A critical component of the international and inter-jurisdictional responses to rough sleepers and homeless people is intensive case management and the coordination of client-focus services to maintain a ‘no wrong door’ policy. In both Darwin and Katherine, rough sleepers and service providers indicated that case management and coordination could be done better with more resources and stewardship from government. The next section of the report also provides an estimate of the resourcing required for case management in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

Key findings from the focus groups

The focus group discussions indicate that there is broad support for a number of the service responses identified during the survey of rough sleepers, for example, more toilets, showers, laundry and storage facilities. There was also broad support for two different styles of accommodation which offered rough sleepers choice between an open safe place that allows drinking and a managed hostel-like facility that has more rules and involves a tariff. The key differences between service providers’ views and those of rough sleepers were around where the accommodation should be located (rough sleepers prefer somewhere central) and, in Darwin, whether everyone could live together.

In some respects these options align with the alternative models outlined in Section 3. The open style of accommodation is similar to the Jimaylya Topsy Harry Centre in Mount Isa where residents are allowed to camp and drink. However, this facility in Mount Isa also incorporates some rules around the amount of alcohol consumed so establishment of an open shelter in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine without drinking rules would present a significant departure from this established model and may have to be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness in providing people with a safe place to drink and sleep. The establishment of safe drinking spots aligns with the NT Government’s recent response to the Riley Review into alcohol policy and legislation which recommended that the NT Government should review strategies and initiatives to improve the safety of drinking spots in the NT.

The Riley Review also recommended trialling a residential MAP in an appropriate location in the NT. Whilst there was no clear support for this idea among rough sleepers in the survey or focus groups, that may be because they have never experienced such a program.

The managed style of facility that rough sleepers identified as a preferred style of accommodation is similar to some of the Housing First Models and‘Douglas House’ in Cairns. However, these models are designed to provide accommodation for several months or a longer term. Rough sleepers indicated that they would prefer to only stay for short periods of time. This


Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providersRough sleepers also indicated that there needs to be transport from accommodation to a hub with intensive case management and optional services or co-location of case-management and services with the accommodation may also be an option. However, the ‘hub-like’ structure delivered by the Salvation Army in Darwin and Katherine is currently well received by rough sleepers.

Other points identified by rough sleepers with regard to accommodation include the following:

• rough sleepers do not necessarily want permanent accommodation. They want to stay for 3-4 nights and then leave

• people from all different clans could stay together

• the preferred location is also the city and dorm-like rooms would be suitable

• the staff at any managed accommodation facility do not need to be Aboriginal, they just have to understand Aboriginal culture including kinship and family obligations

• most rough sleepers would be willing to pay for accommodation but the price point was low, at $10 per night

• rules for any managed accommodation must include no smoking, no drinking and no fighting

• rules at the open structure would be more relaxed with alcohol allowed but people would appreciate some sort of security so that they could feel safe

The service providers indicated that the two accommodation options were implementable but it was not considered practical to have different clans staying together for extended periods or to have people staying in dorm-like rooms. A better alternative would be to establish more than one managed accommodation facility and to let rough sleepers choose ‘organically’ which one they preferred based on location or clan ties. Service providers also

The literature review identified a range of models in Section 2 and 3 which could be used to address the impacts of sleeping rough (refer page 17) or the concerns of rough sleepers identified as part of the survey (refer page 44). Following the literature review and the survey of rough sleepers a series of focus groups were held with service providers and rough sleepers to further refine what the supports identified during the survey might look like in practice and also to tease out what sort of shelter or accommodation rough sleepers would actually use.

The focus groups with rough sleepers were delivered by CCC in liaison with the Salvation Army hub in Darwin and the Doorways hub in Katherine. Approximately twenty people were engaged in focus groups in each of these two locations.

The focus groups with service providers were facilitated by KPMG and were held in Darwin and Katherine. The organisations represented in these focus groups are provided in Appendix 7.

Focus groups in Darwin

The rough sleepers who participated in the focus groups in Darwin identified two types of accommodation that rough sleeping visitors to Darwin and homeless people might use:

1. A managed hostel with a range of accommodation types (camping, beds, family rooms), self-catering, laundry facilities and showers on site. There needs to be two of these so that clan groups have choice e.g. Darwin and Palmerston. Also needs to have women’s space and men’s space within the accommodation and cater to ‘avoidance’.

2. An open structure with cooking facilities where people could eat, drink alcohol, sleep and stay (wet shelter). It would be good if this structure could have security (e.g. security manager). There would need to have a few of these – maybe in areas where people already congregate.


Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providers• Food services – many rough sleepers like cooked food instead of cooking

for themselves. Some rough sleepers already use the all-day bus pass to access different food services around Darwin.

• Cultural protocol – many rough sleepers indicated that they were not aware of who the local Larrakia elders were and what the cultural protocols were. They would welcome the opportunity to meet with the elders and learn about local protocols.

• Service coordination and case management – many rough sleepers get confused about which health service to go to for which problem.

• Outreach services – the focus groups indicated that people liked the outreach services where providers come out and see if everyone is ok.

Observations made by the service providers in response to the themes from the rough sleeper focus groups included the following:

• Service providers in Darwin were broadly supportive of more supports for rough sleepers and indicated that there was already some work underway, (e.g. a mobile laundry service opening in Darwin in May 2018).

• Service providers indicated that there should be a kind of education program that supports rough sleepers with the cultural protocols and rules of town e.g. littering is not acceptable, traffic rules / crossing the road, toilet / shower facilities. This could also include referrals if people ask for them.

• Outreach was considered a critical aspect of future service responses. The Salvation Army currently does this with Street to Home but there is a limit to shelter beds available and the case management that can be provided so need more resourcing.

• There is no ‘holistic’ or ‘wraparound’ model in Darwin. For this to be effectively implemented it needs government stewardship and financial incentives for better coordination and case management and client centred ‘no wrong door’ policy.

indicated that it would be better to re-purpose existing real estate rather than develop a new facility as a new development may attract negative or critical attention. Similarly, developing an accommodation option in the city may not be well received by the general public so it could be easier to build or repurpose real estate in the suburbs. With regard to the type of accommodation, service providers indicated that rough sleepers needed to be offered choice, for example, family rooms, small rooms and/or camping. They also felt there should be a self-catering option.

Service providers acknowledged that case management and coordination of care needed to increase and improve in Darwin.

Apart from providing more detail on accommodation options, the rough sleeper focus groups also provided information on the types of bedding and services that would be effective in supporting people sleeping rough and looking to transition out of homelessness.

• Bedding – people liked the idea of a swag and blankets because mattresses are too bulky to carry around.

• Storage – people liked how the St Vincent de Paul facility in Stuart Park allowed them to store items on site. Rough sleepers would prefer open dry shelving with a service provider like the Salvation Army hub where they can leave their belongings and come back and get them. Most people were not keen on lockers with codes because they would forget the code. People are willing to pay a small amount of money for storage.

• Toilets and showers – all rough sleepers agreed that there needed to be more toilets and showers for available everyone to use. Many facilities were identified as being consistently locked and therefore not useable. Many rough sleepers indicated that they did not like the ‘silver bullet’ toilet facilities as many rough sleepers had stories of being locked inside them.

• Laundry services – many rough sleepers use the laundry facilities at the St Vincent de Paul and would appreciate more services.


Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providersOther points identified by rough sleepers with regard to accommodation include the following:

• rough sleepers do not necessarily want permanent accommodation. They want to stay for 3-4 nights and then leave;

• the preferred location is also the centre of town;

• the accommodation needs to have a men’s area and a women’s area and a place for married couples;

• accommodation needs to be disability friendly for old people and it needs to consider different kinship rules like avoidance;

• most rough sleepers would be willing to pay for accommodation, $20 per night;

• rules for any managed accommodation must include no smoking, no drinking and no fighting and there should be a ‘three strikes and you’re out’ system where people are kicked out of the facility if they don’t behave; and

• rough sleepers did not like the idea of a MAP where people could drink in a managed facility, it would be better to be able to drink in an open, safe place.

The service providers indicated that the two accommodation options were implementable but it was not considered practical to establish a new accommodation site in the centre of town. Similar to Darwin, it is possible that there will not be much public support for new accommodation in the centre of town. Service providers also considered it important to have self-catering options as many visitors to town who were at risk of homelessness were purchasing food in addition to the meal service included in their accommodation tariff because they did not like the food at the hostel. Given that many of these visitors have scarce resources it would be better to give them choice about the food service.

• It was noted that rough sleepers may want access to accommodation for longer than 3-4 nights but that they would leave and then return.

• Service providers were also open to the idea of doing a pilot with one of the bigger communities, for example, the Tiwi Islands, and involving them in the development of a cultural education program as well as accommodation options.

• Service providers noted that in addition to infrastructure and support programs there needs to be more recreational programs (e.g. art and music) for visitors as well as opportunities for economic development. It would be good to involve rough sleepers in the development or maintenance of any new supports.

• Service providers also wanted some kind of centralised data collection to better enable case coordination and case management.

Focus groups in Katherine

Similar to Darwin, the rough sleepers who participated in the focus groups in Katherine identified two types of accommodation that rough sleepers in Katherine might use:

1. A managed hostel with an open space and large rooms for family (dry shelter). People could access support services and staff on site at the accommodation. There needs to be two places for Beswick / Barunga mob and Lajamanu / Wave Hill mob.

2. An open structure with cooking facilities where people could eat, drink alcohol, sleep and stay (wet shelter). It would be good if this structure could have security (e.g. security manager).


Focus groups with rough sleepers and service providers• The idea of swags or light bedding for rough sleepers was supported and

service providers were willing to provide an open air shelf or space for people to store their belongings and reduce the risk of police or other intervening parties disposing of their belongings.

• It was noted that there are already some examples in Katherine where people pay for accommodation in Katherine but leave it periodically and then return. This enables people to feel independent and stable but to also move around and see family and friends.

• Service providers would like to have more resources and accommodation to enable an assertive outreach service like ‘Street to Home’.

• Service providers are committed to a ‘no wrong door’ policy but sometimes they have no choice but to turn a client away if there is no accommodation available.

• It was noted that in addition to infrastructure and support programs there needs to be more opportunities for employment and economic development, for example, involving rough sleepers in the maintenance of any gardens or infrastructure.

• Service providers were concerned about how broad an education program would have to be to adequately meet the needs of visitors and rough sleepers in Katherine. It would require leveraging the expertise and experience of elders from a range of communities. However, service providers accepted that rough sleepers might want education and information about the cultural and social protocols of visiting and rough sleeping in Katherine.

• There needs to be stewardship for better coordination and case management and client centred ‘no wrong door’ policy. All providers are stretched so they can’t say ‘yes’ to every referral or put tools down to find the most appropriate response to each person if it is not their own service.

• Service providers in Katherine were not supportive of registering people but they do work together to support individuals who are known to a number of providers.

The rough sleeper focus groups also provided information on other supports including the following:

• Bedding – people liked the idea of swags and blankets but acknowledged that they would be hard to carry around and would therefore be more practical if there was a place to store them.

• Storage – people like the idea of using a managed service such as the Salvation Army Doorways Hub to store their belongings. Similar to the cohort in Darwin, many people considered the idea of locker with codes to difficult to deal with as they would lose or forget the code.

• Toilets and showers – all rough sleepers agreed that there needed to be more toilets but similar to rough sleepers in Darwin, the focus group participants in Katherine did not like the ‘silver bullet’ toilet facilities. Rough sleepers acknowledged that they have been using showers at the Salvation Army hub and that this is a worthwhile service.

• Laundry services – rough sleepers in Katherine indicated that more laundry services would be good and this would be best placed within an accommodation service.

• Outreach and support services – rough sleepers indicated that more outreach to camps would be good and also a male support program for men who had been outcast from community.

• Transport – many people identified transport as a clear lack in Katherine.

• Coordination – people want better coordination of services and support.

• Cultural protocol – many rough sleepers indicated that an educational program about how to respectful live in Katherine would be good

Observations made by the service providers in response to the themes from the rough sleeper focus groups included the following:

• Service providers supported the idea of having more toilets, laundry and shower facilities. It would be good to have a mobile laundry service in Katherine for people who don’t want to access the Salvation Army Doorways Hub

Pages 55 through 63 redacted for the following reasons:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Commercial In Confidence

Concluding summary


Concluding summaryThis report has provided the findings from KPMG’s engagement with the Department which aimed to identify effective responses to homelessness and sleeping rough and to better understand the experience of people sleeping rough in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

Based on a review of the literature and consultations with service providers, a number of gaps were identified in the provision of services in Darwin. Palmerston and Katherine. These include the following:

• Strategic responses to drinking, whether it be intermittent anti-social intoxicated behaviour in the general public or health and violence impacts of alcohol.

• Service centers and gathering places including ‘hub’ locations where case managers can provide referrals to rough sleepers and homeless people and coordinate service access – noting there is one in Darwin and Katherine respectively but these are under-resourced or cannot readily refer into accommodation. In particular, there is a lack of safe drinking places.

• Service centers and gathering places including ‘hub’ locations in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine, where case managers can provide referrals to rough sleepers and homeless people and coordinate service access –noting there are hub sites in Darwin and Katherine which are run by non-government organisations but these sites are limited in their capacity to case manage all clients and in limited in terms of the accommodation available to refer clients into.

• Sustainable medium-term transitional housing to enable rough sleepers to be accommodated and access supports; and enable those wishing to transition out of homelessness to obtain appropriate service referrals.

This assessment is based on consultations with stakeholders and also a review of the literature which included a range of responses identified as best practice for responding to the needs of Aboriginal homeless people.

The response models identified in other jurisdictions as part of the literature review included variations on the Housing First model, assertive outreach, managed alcohol programs and wet shelters.

These models informed consultations with rough sleepers and service providers.

The survey of rough sleepers delivered as part of this project indicated that the majority of survey respondents had begun to sleep rough because they had left community to see family or because of anti-social behaviour and boredom. The survey also indicated that the majority of respondents were accessing some kind of health service (95%) and food services (90%). A high majority of survey respondents were not on the public housing wait list (87% of survey respondents) and were happy where they were (83% of survey respondents). Furthermore, only 17% were accessing accommodation services. This indicates that a wide range of supports other than accommodation are required to address the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

The suite of supports identified through this consultation included the following:

• improved access to public toilets and showers – this could involve unlocking existing infrastructure as well as establishing more amenities;

• improved access to health services including outreach services;

• increasing storage options, for example, having a dry storage shelf at a managed site such as a ‘hub’ service centre;

• improved access to bedding such as swags;

• continuing food services so that rough sleepers can access cooked food;

• education relating to local and cultural protocols for rough sleepers as well as the general public;

• establishing safe places that are for drinking and sleeping; and

• opportunities for employment or skill development or community involvement, for example, assisting with maintaining facilities.


Summary of alternative responses to rough sleepers• Service providers noted that rough sleepers may want access to

accommodation for longer than 3-4 nights but that they would leave and then return. This fluctuating demand for accommodation would have to be managed with rough sleepers to ensure that they understand that they would have to pay for the accommodation while they are away if they want to return to it.

• Service providers noted that in addition to infrastructure and support programs there needs to be more recreational programs (e.g. art and music) for visitors as well as opportunities for economic development. It would be good to involve rough sleepers in the development or maintenance of any new supports.

Other considerations for the open structure model include the following:

• The rough sleepers did not like the idea of a MAP but this could be because they are not familiar with how such a program as the ones implemented in Canada or the UK work. The Riley Review which aimed to identify policy and legislation that could reduce alcohol fuelled crime and ensure safe communities, has recommended trialing a residential MAP in an appropriate location in the NT.

• The open structure model aligns with the Riley Review which recommended the establishment of safe spots for drinking, away from roads and other hazards.

With regard to shelter, the rough sleepers in Darwin and Katherine described the following two types of accommodation as preferred models:

1. A managed hostel with a range of accommodation types (camping, beds, family rooms) as well as self-catering facilities, laundry facilities and showers on site. There would also need be a women’s space and men’s space within the accommodation and also a design and management style that caters to cultural needs such as ‘avoidance’.

2. An open structure with cooking facilities where people could eat, drink alcohol, sleep and stay (wet shelter). It would be good if this structure could have security. There would need to have a few of these – maybe in areas where people already congregate.

To optimise the effectiveness of these two models of accommodation, there would need to be transport services from the managed hostel to a hub with intensive case management and optional services or co-location of case-management and services with the accommodation may also be an option.

In both Darwin and Katherine, service providers indicated that it would be better to re-purpose existing real estate on the outskirts of town rather than develop a new facility in the city centre because a new or central development might attract negative attention from the public.

Other considerations for the managed hostel model include the following:

• Rough sleepers are happy to pay something for the accommodation, storage facilities, food and bedding. The price point varied and people in Katherine were willing to pay more (~$20/night) compared to Darwin (~$10/night).

• Rough sleepers would welcome more outreach services and service providers in both Darwin and Katherine would support more outreach services if there were more resources available to deliver the services and if there was accommodation available to readily refer people into. Currently, service providers are committed to a ‘no wrong door’ policy but sometimes they have no choice but to turn a client away if there is no accommodation available.


Summary of alternative responses to rough sleepers

This project has brought together ideas from literature, the target cohort (rough sleepers) and service providers to provide a unique evidence base for developing future policy in response to homelessness and rough sleepers. This evidence base indicates that there is no single solution for addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people. Instead, a suite of responses that caters to the spectrum of needs of rough sleepers and enables a client centred approach, is recommended. In particular, it is clear that none of the models used in other jurisdictions have been tested in the context of remote service delivery or in meeting the needs of Aboriginal people. This project, and the consultation therein, provides a unique opportunity to develop a tailored approach to addressing the needs of rough sleepers in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.

Reference & bibliography list


Reference List 1 Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016) Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, Commonwealth Government

2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) (2017), Specialist homelessness services annual report 2016–17, Commonwealth Government

3 Holmes C., McRae-Williams. E, National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund‘An investigation into the influx of Indigenous ‘visitors’ to Darwin’s Long Grass from remote communities –Phase 2’, Monograph Series No.33, 2008

4 Ibid.

5 Parsell. C, Phillips.R, ‘Indigenous Rough Sleeping in Darwin, Australia: ‘Out of Place’ in an Urban Setting’ , Urban Studies 51(1)185-202, January 2014

6 Spinney, A., Habibis, D. and McNelis, S. (2016) Safe and sound? How funding mix affects homelessness support for Indigenous Australians, AHURI Final Report No. 272, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne

7 Birdsall-Jones, C., Corunna, V., Turner, N. (2010) Indigenous homelessness, AHURI Final Report No. 143, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne

8 Carson.D, Carson.D, Taylor.A, (2013) ‘Indigenous Long Grassers: itinerants or problem tourists’, Annals of Tourism Research

9 Taylor.A, (2012) ‘Investigations of changing Indigenous migration practices for the Northern Territory of Australia: theoretical and policy implications’

10 Taylor.P, Japanardi Walker.S, Marawili.B, (2012) ‘Message in the bottle: survey of drinking patterns and attitudes about alcohol policy amongst Darwin’s homeless’, Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation,

11 Maypilama, Garngulkpuy, Christe.M, Greatorex.J, Grace.J, (2004) ‘Yolnu Longgrassers on Larrakia Land’

12 Memmott.P, Bird-Jones.C, Greenop.K, (2012) ‘Why are special services needed to address Indigenous homelessness’ Institute of Social Science Research, The University of Queensland

13 Memmott, P., Long, S., Chambers, C., Spring, F. (2003) Categories of Indigenous 'homeless' people and good practice responses to their needs, AHURI Final Report No. 49, AHURI, Melbourne

14 Ibid.

15 Memmott, 2012 op. cit.

16 Robinson.G, Cleary.J, Carson.D, Robinson.S, Carson.D (2012), ‘Homeless away from home’, Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of SA, The Northern Institute for Charles Darwin University, Flinders University Rural Clinical School

17 Carson et. al. 2013 op. cit.

18 Ibid

19 Holmes, 2008 op. cit


21 Ibid

22 Ibid

23 Memmott, 2012 op. cit. Memmott, 2003 op. cit

24 Phillips R. and Parsell C. (2012) The role of assertive outreach in ending ‘rough sleeping’, AHURI Final Report No.179. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

25 Ibid.


Reference List (continued)26 Memmott, 2003 op. cit.

27 Button.E, Baulderston.J, (2012) ‘Keeping off the streets: Effective Models of intervention with people who are sleeping rough- service models in three States’, Flinders University of South Australia

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Carson, 2013, op. cit

31 Phillips, 2013, op. cit.

32 Ibid.

33 Button, 2012, op. cit.

34 Phillips.R, Parsell.C, Seage.N, Memmott.P, (2011)’ Assertive Outreach’ AHURI Positioning Paper No.136

35 Walsh,T, Taylor,M. (2007) ‘You’re not welcome here: Police move on powers and discrimination law’ UNSW Law Journal volume 30(1)

36 Parsell and Phillips, 2014, op. cit.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 Kinchin, 2016 op. cit.


44 Parsell, 2014, op. cit.

45 Holmes, 2008 op. cit

56 Spinney, 2016, op. cit.


48 Ibid.ANDMemmott, P., Long, S. and Chambers, C. (2003). ‘A National Analysis of Strategies Used to Respond to Indigenous Itinerants and Public Place Dwellers’, Prepared for the Commonwealth National Homelessness Strategy, University of Queensland

49 NT Courier Mail, ‘Darwin’s reputation with visitors at stake over behaviour of itinerants’, 8 January 2018 and NT Courier Mail ‘Darwin Council and NT Government passing buck on itinerant issues’, 7 January 2018.

50 Memmott et.al., 2003, op. cit.

51 Ibid.

52 Memmott, P.C. and Fantin, S. (2001) 'The long-grassers: A strategic report on Indigenous 'itinerants' in the Darwin and Palmerston area', University of Queensland


54 Farrell, A., Britner, P., Guzzardo, M. and Goodrich, S. (2010). Supportive housing for families in child welfare: Client characteristics and their outcomes at discharge. Child and Youth Services Review. 32(2): 145-154.


Reference List (continued)55 Henwood, B, Cabassa, L, Craig, C and Padgett, D (2013). Permanent supportive housing: addressing homelessness and health disparities? American Journal of Public Health. 103(S): 188-S192.

56 Brisbane South PHN Partners in Recovery Consortium (2016), ‘MICAH Project, Housing First Factsheet’ http://micahprojects.org.au/assets/docs/Factsheets/2017-Housing-First-fact-sheet.pdf

57 Ibid.



60 Ezard, N., Dolan, K., Baldry, E., Burns, L., Day, C., Hodge, S., Cubitt, T., Loesch, B., & Mackay, T. (2015) ‘Feasibility of a Managed Alcohol Program (MAP) for Sydney’s Homeless’ Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education

61 Ibid.

62 Memmott.P, Nash.D, (2012) ‘No Wrong Door? Managing Indigenous homeless clients in Mt Isa.’ The University of Queensland.

63 Ibid.

64 Ibid.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid.

67 Memmott.P, Nash.D, (2016) ‘Housing conditionality, Indigenous lifewords and policy outcomes, Mt Isa Case Study’ AHURI

68 Carrington.A, Mensinga.J, (2017), Douglas House, Supported Housing Services, practice model development and evaluation’ Research Report, James Cook University – Social Work

69 Carrington et. al. 2017, op. cit.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid.

72 AIHW, 2017 op.cit.

73 Taylor et. al. 2012

74 Keegan, A. (2008) ‘ Hospital Bed Occupancy’, Australian Doctors Fund publications

75 Flatau, P. Conroy E. Thielking M. Clear A. Hall S. Bauskis A.Farrugia M. and Burns L. (2013) How integrated are homelessness, mental health and drug and alcohol services in Australia? AHURI Final Report No.206. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

76 Morse, G. (1999) A Review of Case Management for People Who Are Homeless: Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research. IN FOSBURG, L. B. & DENNIS, D. L. (Eds.) Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

77 Gronda, Helen (2009) ‘What makes case management work for people experiencing homelessness? Evidence for practice’ for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

78 NT Government, Public Sector Employment Rates of Pay https://ocpe.nt.gov.au/nt-public-sector-employment/enterprise-agreement-negotiations/rates-of-pay


Reference List (continued)81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.



85 Pathways Housing First, (2017), ‘Pathways Housing First’ https://www.pathwayshousingfirst.org/

86 Spinne, 2016, op. cit

87 Ezard, N., Dolan, K., Baldry, E., Burns, L., Day, C., Hodge, S., Cubitt, T., Loesch, B., & Mackay, T. (2015) ‘Feasibility of a Managed Alcohol Program (MAP) for Sydney’s Homeless’ Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education

88 Ibid.

89 Memmott.P, Nash.D, (2012) ‘No Wrong Door? Managing Indigenous homeless clients in Mt Isa.’ The University of Queensland.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid.

93 Ibid.

94 Memmott.P, Nash.D, (2016) ‘Housing conditionality, Indigenous lifewords and policy outcomes, Mt Isa Case Study’ AHURI

95 Carrington.A, Mensinga.J, (2017), Douglas House, Supported Housing Services, practice model development and evaluation’ Research Report, James Cook University – Social Work

96 Ibid.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid.

99 Levin, I., Borlagdan, J., Mallett, S. & Ben, J. (2015). A critical examination of the youth foyer model for alleviating homelessness: Strengthening a promising evidence base. Evidence Base, 2015(4): 1-23, doi 10.4225/50/57C4E83D525A7

100 Deakin.E, (2013) ‘South West Sydney Youth Hub Project incorporating the foyer model’ EJD Consulting & Associates HAP Project no.315

101 Ibid.

102 Jones, Lloyd.C (2015), ‘Our Place: Outcomes & Learnings’ Anglicare Research

103 Ibid.

104 Foyer Oxford, (2014), ‘Results’ http://www.foyeroxford.org.au/about/results

105 Deakin, 2013, op. cit.

106 Ibid

107 Levin, 2015 op. cit.

108 Button, 2012 op. cit.

109 Ibid.

110 Ibid.

111 Johnson.C, Chamberlain.C, (2015) ‘Evaluation of the Melbourne Street to Home Program: Final Report’, RMIT University

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid.


Reference List (continued)114 Ibid.

115 Parsell, 2014 op. cit.

116 Ibid.

117 Conroy.E, Bower.M, Flatau.P, Zaretzky.K, Eardley.T, Burns.L, (2014) ‘Mission Australia; the MISHA Project; from homelessness to sustained housing 2010-2013’ University of Western Sydney, University of Western Australia, University of New South Wales

118 Ibid.

119 Ibid.

120 Ibid.

121 Ibid.

122 Parsell, 2014 op. cit.

123 Ibid.

124 Stephen Gaetz, Erin Dej, Tim Richter, & Melanie Redman (2016): The State of Homelessness in Canada 2016. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press

125 Ibid.

126 Ibid.

127 Ibid.

128 O’Grady, Bill, Gaetz, Stephen, & Buccieri, Kristy, (2011). Can I See Your ID? The Policing of Youth Homelessness in Toronto. (Toronto: JFCY & Homeless Hub)

129 Government of Canada, (2016), ‘Homelessness Partnering Strategy’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness.html

130 Government of Canada, (2014), ‘Types of Supports’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/supports.html#clinical_supports

131 Government of Canada, (2016), ‘National Homelessness Information System’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/nhis.html

132 Government of Canada, (2015), ‘Community Plan 2014-2019: Small Cities’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/smallcommunities.html

133 Government of Canada, 2015 op. cit.

134 The Foundation Abbe Pierre – FEANTSA, 2017 op. cit.

135 Christensen J. (2016) ‘Indigenous Homelessness: Canadian Context’ in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016 pp. 15-23

136 Christinensen, 2016 op. cit.

137 Christensen.J, Andrew.P, ‘“They Don’t Let Us Look after Each Other Like We Used To”: Reframing Indigenous Homeless Geographies as Home/Journeying in the Northwest Territories, Canada’ pp. 24-48

Belanger.Y, Lindstrom.G, (2016) ‘All We Need Is Our Land”: Exploring Southern Alberta Urban Indigenous Homelessness’ pp161-184, in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016


Reference List (continued)138 Christensen.J, Andrew.P, op. cit.

139 Belanger.Y, Lindstrom.G, 2016 op. cit.

140 Poundmaker’s Lodge, About, http://poundmakerslodge.ca/about/

141 Christensen.J, ‘Indigenous Homelessness: Canadian Context’ p. 19 in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016 pp. 15-23

142 Lu’ma Native Housing Society, (2010), ‘Building Capacity’ http://lnhs.ca/

143 University of Victoria, (2016) ‘Overview of Managed Alcohol (MAP sites in Canada’ Centre for Additions Research of BC ttps://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/carbc/assets/docs/resource-overview-of-MAP-sites-in-Canada.pdf

144 Ibid.

145 Pauly. B, Gray.E, Perkin.K, Chow.C, Vallance.K, Krysowaty.B, Stockwell.T, (2016), ‘Finding Safety: a pilot study of managed alcohol program participants’ perceptions of housing and quality of life’ Harm Reduction Journal 13:15

146 Vallance.K, , Stockwell.T, Pauly. B, Chow.C, Gray.E, Krysowaty.B, Perkin.K,(2016), ‘Do managed alcohol programs change patterns of alcohol consumption and reduce related harm? A pilot study’ Harm Reduction Journal 13:13

147 Pauly. B et al ,2016, op. cit.

148 Ibid.

149 Bird.H, (2016), ‘Free booze for alcoholics: could managed alcohol programs work in N.W.T?’ CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/managed-alcohol-program-yellowknife-1.3798872

150 University of Victoria, (2016) ‘Overview of Managed Alcohol (MAP sites in Canada’ Centre for Additions Research of BC ttps://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/carbc/assets/docs/resource-overview-of-MAP-sites-in-Canada.pdf

151 Government of Canada, Case Studies: How it works on the ground, Toronto, Ontario – Streets to homes https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/service-delivery/case-studies.html#hamilton

152 City of Lethbridge, Continuing to Bring Lethbridge Home Annual Progress Report 2015-16, Lethbridge, Albert, Canada, 2017

Government of Canada, Case Studies: Lethbridge, Alberta – The City and Community to "Bring Lethbridge Home“ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/service-delivery/case-studies.html#hamilton

153 Poundermaker’s Lodge op. cit.

154 Government of Canada, Case Studies: How it works on the ground, Edmonton, Alberta – Homeward Trust https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/service-delivery/case-studies.html#hamilton

155 Housing First Auckland, (2017), ‘homelessness in Auckland will be rare, brief and non-recurring’ https://www.housingfirst.co.nz/results

156 Mills, A., Thom, K., Maynard, A., Meehan, C., Kidd, J., Newcombe, D., &Widdowson, D. (2015). Meeting the housing needs of vulnerable populations in New Zealand. Auckland: Transforming Cities, University of Auckland.

157 Ibid.

158 Collins. S, (2015), ‘Auckland Homelessness: rough sleepers tally doubles’ NZME http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11388764


Reference List (continued)159 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (2014), ‘He Whare Ahuru He Oranga Tangata – The Maori Housing Strategy: Directions 2014-2025’ http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/maori-housing-strategy/document-image-library/strategy.pdf

160 Groot.S, Peters.E, (2016), ‘Indigenous Homelessness: New Zealand Context’ Chapter 15, University of Manitoba

161 Beaton.S, Cain.T, Robinson.H, Hearn.V, (2015), ‘An insight into the experience of rough sleeping in Central Auckland’ Lifewise https://www.lifewise.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/rough-sleeping-report.pdf

162 Twyford.P, Davidson.M, Fox.M, (2016), ‘Final Report of the cross party inquiry on homelessness’ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/4725/attachments/original/1476053092/CPHI_report_final.pdf?1476053092

163 City of Wellington, (2014), ‘Te Mahana: Ending homelessness in Wellington strategy for 2014-2022. https://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/have-your-say/public-input/files/consultations/2013/02-te-mahana-homelessness-strategy/2014-temahana-strategy-final-draft.pdf

164 OECD, 2016 op. cit.

165 Ibid.

166 Dwell Housing Trust, (2016), ‘Te Aro Pa Trust papkainga housing’ http://dwell.org.nz/find-housing-2/te-aro-pa-trust-papakainga-housing

167 Housing First Auckland, 2017 op. cit.

168 People Project, (2017), ‘Rough sleeping dramatically reduced in Hamilton’ https://www.thepeoplesproject.org.nz/news/rough-sleeping-dramatically-reduced-in-hamilton

169 New Zealand Government, (2017), ‘$205m boost for social housing’ https://www.budget.govt.nz/budget/2017/releases/r22-adams-205m-boost-for-social-housing.htm

170 Quill.A, (2017), ‘Pop-up emergency housing village unveiled in Papamoa’ NZ Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11880769

171 Robson.S, (2017), ‘$27m boost for rough sleeper accommodation’ RNZ http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/338419/27m-boost-for-rough-sleeper-accommodation

172 Collette.D, (2017), ‘Wellington Mayor forging ahead with plans for NZ wet house in Wellington’ https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/93528455/wellington-mayor-forging-ahead-with-plans-for-new-zealands-first-wet-house-in-wellington

173 People Project op. cit.

174 Ministry of Social Development, (2017), ‘Transitional Housing’ https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/social-housing/transitional-housing-fact-sheet.pdf

175 Murphy.T, (2017) ‘what to do about Auckland’s 23,400 homeless’ Newsroom https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/07/18/39152/what-to-do-about-aucklands-23400-homeless

176 National Alliance to end homelessness, (2016), ‘the State of homelessness in America 2016’ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/

177 Friedner Wittman, Douglas Polcin, Dave Sheridan, (2017) "The architecture of recovery: two kinds of housing assistance for chronic homeless persons with substance use disorders", Drugs and Alcohol Today, Vol. 17 Issue: 3, pp.157-167, https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-12-2016-0032

178 Ibid.

179 Ibid.

180 Ibid.


Reference List (continued)181 Susan E. Collins, Daniel K. Malone, Seema L. Clifasefi, Joshua A. Ginzler, Michelle D. Garner MSW, Bonnie Burlingham, Heather S. Lonczak, Elizabeth A. Dana MA, Megan Kirouac, Kenneth Tanzer BA, William G. Hobson, G. Alan Marlatt, and Mary E. Larimer, (2012) ‘Project-Based Housing First for Chronically Homeless Individuals With Alcohol Problems: Within-Subjects Analyses of 2-Year Alcohol Trajectories’ American Journal of Public Health

182 McElroy.M, (2012), ‘Homeless heavy drinkers imbibe less when housing allows alcohol’ UWNEWS http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/01/19/homeless-heavy-drinkers-imbibe-less-when-housing-allows-alcohol/

183 The BLOCK project, (no date), ‘the BLOCK Project Model’ http://www.the-block-project.com/the-block-project/

184 Hoover.S, (2017) ‘Facing homelessness aims to build small houses on every city block’ Real Change http://realchangenews.org/2017/04/05/facing-homelessness-aims-build-small-houses-every-city-block

185 The Foundation Abbe Pierre – FEANTSA, (2017) ‘Second overview of housing exclusion in Europe’ http://www.feantsa.org/download/gb_housing-exclusion-report_complete_20178613899107250251219.pdf

186 Homeless link, (2017) ‘2016 rough sleeping count’ http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Homeless%20Link%20-%20analysis%20of%20rough%20sleeping%20statistics%20for%20England%202016.pdf

187 The Foundation Abbe Pierre – FEANTSA, 2017 op. cit.

188 Ibid.

189 Foster.D, (2017), ‘What can the UK learn from how Finland solved homelessness?’ The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

190 Depaul Ireland Services Department, (2010) ‘Depaul Ireland Sundial House Review’ http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/18223/1/sundial-house-review-final-digital-copy.pdf

191 Rorke.B, (2016), ‘In the shadow of carrickmines: Irish Government violates Traveller Housing and Accommodation rights’ European Roma Rights Centre http://www.errc.org/blog/in-the-shadow-of-carrickmines-irish-government-violates-traveller-housing-and-accommodation-rights/105

192 Boyle.F, Palmer.J, Ahmed.S, (2016), ‘The efficiency and effectiveness of the housing first support service piloted by Depaul in Belfast, funded by supporting people: An SROI Evaluation’ Final report https://www.nihe.gov.uk/housing_first_evaluation.pdf

193 Travellers Advice Team, part of the Community Law Partnership, (no date), ‘Gypsy Roma traveler integration strategy for England, accommodation issues’ http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/discussion%20paper.pdf

194 Sunderland City Council, (2017) ‘Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling show person accommodation’https://www.sunderland.gov.uk/media/19048/Sunderland-Gypsy-and-Traveller-and-Travelling-Showpersons-Accommodation-Assessment-2017-/pdf/17_Sunderland_Gypsy_and_Traveller_and_Travelling_Showperson_Accommodation_Assessment_(2017).pdf

195 Ibid.


Bibliography Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census of Population and Housing: Estimating homelessness, 2016

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Specialist Homelessness Services Annual Report, 2016-17

Beaton.S, Cain.T, Robinson.H, Hearn.V, (2015), ‘An insight into the experience of rough sleeping in Central Auckland’ Lifewise https://www.lifewise.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/rough-sleeping-report.pdf

Belanger.Y, Lindstrom.G, ‘All We Need Is Our Land”: Exploring Southern Alberta Urban Indigenous Homelessness’ pp161-184, in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016

Belanger.Y, Lindstrom.G,, ‘All We Need Is Our Land”: Exploring Southern Alberta Urban Indigenous Homelessness’ pp161-184 andRebecca Schiff, Alina Turner and Jeannette Waegema Kerss, ‘Rural Indigenous Homelessness in Canada’ pp185-209 in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016

Bird.H, (2016), ‘Free booze for alcoholics: could managed alcohol programs work in N.W.T?’ CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/managed-alcohol-program-yellowknife-1.3798872

Birdsall-Jones, C., Corunna, V., Turner, N. (2010) Indigenous homelessness, AHURI Final Report No. 143, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited, Melbourne

Boyle.F, Palmer.J, Ahmed.S, (2016), ‘The efficiency and effectiveness of the housing first support service piloted by Depaul in Belfast, funded by supporting people: An SROI Evaluation’ Final report https://www.nihe.gov.uk/housing_first_evaluation.pdf

Brisbane South PHN Partners in Recovery Consortium (2016), ‘MICAH Project, Housing First Factsheet’ http://micahprojects.org.au/assets/docs/Factsheets/2017-Housing-First-fact-sheet.pdf

Bullen, J., Whittaker, E., Schollar-Root, O., Burns, L., & Zmudzki, F. (2016). In-Depth Evaluation of Camperdown Common Ground: Permanent housing for vulnerable long-term homeless people (SPRC Report 03/16). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Australia.

Button.E, Baulderston.J, (2012) ‘Keeping off the streets: Effective Models of intervention with people who are sleeping rough- service models in three States’, Flinders University of South Australia

Carrington.A, Mensinga.J, (2017), Douglas House, Supported Housing Services, practice model development and evaluation’ Research Report, James Cook University – Social Work

Carson.D, Carson.D, Taylor.A, ‘Indigenous Long Grassers: itinerants or problem tourists’, Annals of Tourism Research, July 2013

Carson.D, Carson.D, Taylor.A, ‘Indigenous Long Grassers: itinerants or problem tourists’, Annals of Tourism Research, July 2013

Christensen,J, ‘Indigenous Homelessness: Canadian Context’ in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016 pp. 15-23

Christensen.J, ‘Indigenous Homelessness: Canadian Context’ in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016 pp. 15-23

Christensen.J, ‘Indigenous Homelessness: Canadian Context’ p. 19 in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016 pp. 15-23Lu’ma Native Housing Society, (2010), ‘Building Capacity’ http://lnhs.ca/

Christensen.J, Andrew.P ‘“They Don’t Let Us Look after Each Other Like We Used To”: Reframing Indigenous Homeless Geographies as Home/Journeying in the Northwest Territories, Canada’ pp. 24-48

Christensen.J, Andrew.P, ‘“They Don’t Let Us Look after Each Other Like We Used To”: Reframing Indigenous Homeless Geographies as Home/Journeying in the Northwest Territories, Canada’ in Indigenous homelessness : perspectives from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand / edited by Evelyn J. Peters, Julia Christensen, university of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada 2016 pp. 24-48

City of Lethbridge, Continuing to Bring Lethbridge Home Annual Progress Report 2015-16, Lethbridge, Albert, Canada, 2017


Bibliography (continued)City of Wellington, (2014), ‘Te Mahana: Ending homelessness in Wellington strategy for 2014-2022. https://wellington.govt.nz/~/media/have-your-say/public-input/files/consultations/2013/02-te-mahana-homelessness-strategy/2014-temahana-strategy-final-draft.pdf

Collette.D, (2017), ‘Wellington Mayor forging ahead with plans for NZ wet house in Wellington’ https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/93528455/wellington-mayor-forging-ahead-with-plans-for-new-zealands-first-wet-house-in-wellington

Collins. S, (2015), ‘Auckland Homelessness: rough sleepers tally doubles’ NZME http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11388764

Conroy.E, Bower.M, Flatau.P, Zaretzky.K, Eardley.T, Burns.L, (2014) ‘Mission Australia; the MISHA Project; from homelessness to sustained housing 2010-2013’ University of Western Sydney, University of Western Australia, University of New South Wales

Deakin.E, (2013) ‘South West Sydney Youth Hub Project incorporating the foyer model’ EJD Consulting & Associates HAP Project no.315

Depaul Ireland Services Department, (2010) ‘Depaul Ireland Sundial House Review’ http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/18223/1/sundial-house-review-final-digital-copy.pdf

Dwell Housing Trust, (2016), ‘Te Aro Pa Trust papkainga housing’ http://dwell.org.nz/find-housing-2/te-aro-pa-trust-papakainga-housing

Ezard, N., Dolan, K., Baldry, E., Burns, L., Day, C., Hodge, S., Cubitt, T., Loesch, B., & Mackay, T. (2015) ‘Feasibility of a Managed Alcohol Program (MAP) for Sydney’s Homeless’ Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education

Falvo, Nick ‘Homelessness, Program Responses, and an Assessment of Toronto’s Streets to Homes Program’, Canadian Policy Research Networks Report, February 2009

Farrell, A., Britner, P., Guzzardo, M. and Goodrich, S. (2010). Supportive housing for families in child welfare: Client characteristics and their outcomes at discharge. Child and Youth Services Review. 32(2): 145-154.

Flatau, P. Conroy E. Thielking M. Clear A. Hall S. Bauskis A.Farrugia M. and Burns L. (2013) How integrated are homelessness, mental health and drug and alcohol services in Australia? AHURI Final Report No.206. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

Foster.D, (2017), ‘What can the UK learn from how Finland solved homelessness?’ The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2017/mar/22/finland-solved-homelessness-eu-crisis-housing-first

Foyer Foundation (2017) ‘Foyers help young people aged 16-25 who are homeless or at risk of becoming so, to stabilise their life and transition to independent living’ http://foyer.org.au/

Foyer Oxford, (2014), ‘Results’ http://www.foyeroxford.org.au/about/results

Friedner Wittman, Douglas Polcin, Dave Sheridan, (2017) "The architecture of recovery: two kinds of housing assistance for chronic homeless persons with substance use disorders", Drugs and Alcohol Today, Vol. 17 Issue: 3, pp.157-167, https://doi.org/10.1108/DAT-12-2016-0032

Government of Canada, (2014), ‘Types of Supports’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/supports.html#clinical_supports

Government of Canada, (2015), ‘Community Plan 2014-2019: Small Cities’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/smallcommunities.html

Government of Canada, (2015, ‘Community Plan 2014-2019: Large Cities’ https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/esdc-edsc/migration/documents/eng/communities/homelessness/largecommunities/hps_cplc_2014-19.pdf

Government of Canada, (2016), ‘Homelessness Partnering Strategy’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness.html

Government of Canada, (2016), ‘National Homelessness Information System’ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/nhis.html

Government of Canada, Case Studies: How it works on the ground, Edmonton, Alberta – Homeward Trust https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/service-delivery/case-studies.html#hamilton


Bibliography (continued) Government of Canada, Case Studies: How it works on the ground, Toronto, Ontario – Streets to homes https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/service-delivery/case-studies.html#hamilton

Government of Canada, Case Studies: Lethbridge, Alberta – The City and Community to "Bring Lethbridge Home“ https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/communities/homelessness/housing-first/service-delivery/case-studies.html#hamilton

Gronda, Helen (2009) ‘What makes case management work for people experiencing homelessness? Evidence for practice’ for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

Groot.S, Peters.E, (2016), ‘Indigenous Homelessness: New Zealand Context’ Chapter 15, University of Manitoba

Heagney.C, Beadnell.C, (2016) ‘One future for housing support: Elizabeth street common ground’

Henwood, B, Cabassa, L, Craig, C and Padgett, D (2013). Permanent supportive housing: addressing homelessness and health disparities? American Journal of Public Health. 103(S): 188-S192.

Holmes C., McRae-Williams. E, National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund ‘An investigation into the influx of Indigenous ‘visitors’ to Darwin’s Long Grass from remote communities –Phase 2’, Monograph Series No.33, 2008

Homeless link, (2017) ‘2016 rough sleeping count’ http://www.homeless.org.uk/sites/default/files/site-attachments/Homeless%20Link%20-%20analysis%20of%20rough%20sleeping%20statistics%20for%20England%202016.pdf

Homeward Trust, Community Strategy to End Youth Homelessness in Edmonton, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 2015

Hoover.S, (2017) ‘Facing homelessness aims to build small houses on every city block’ Real Change http://realchangenews.org/2017/04/05/facing-homelessness-aims-build-small-houses-every-city-block

Housing First Auckland, (2017), ‘homelessness in Auckland will be rare, brief and non-recurring’ https://www.housingfirst.co.nz/results

Johnson.C, Chamberlain.C, (2015) ‘Evaluation of the Melbourne Street to Home Program: Final Report’, RMIT University

Jones, Lloyd.C (2015), ‘Our Place: Outcomes & Learnings’ Anglicare Research

Kinchin.I, Jacups.S, Hunter.G, Rogerson.B, (2016), ‘Economic evaluation of ‘Return to Country’: A remote Australian initiative to address Indigenous homelessness’ Evaluation and Program Planning 56 -69-75

Levin, I., Borlagdan, J., Mallett, S. & Ben, J. (2015). A critical examination of the youth foyer model for alleviating homelessness: Strengthening a promising evidence base. Evidence Base, 2015(4): 1-23, doi 10.4225/50/57C4E83D525A7

Levin, I., Borlagdan, J., Mallett, S. & Ben, J. (2015). A critical examination of the youth foyer model for alleviating homelessness: Strengthening a promising evidence base. Evidence Base, 2015(4): 1-23, doi 10.4225/50/57C4E83D525A7

Mare.P, (2013) ‘Is Common Ground a commonsense response to homelessness?’ Inside Story and Contributions, Liqorice, 2017 http://insidestory.org.au/is-common-ground-a-commonsense-response-to-homelessness/

Maypilama, Garngulkpuy, Christe.M, Greatorex.J, Grace.J, (2004) ‘Yolnu Longgrassers on Larrakia Land’

McElroy.M, (2012), ‘Homeless heavy drinkers imbibe less when housing allows alcohol’ UWNEWS http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/01/19/homeless-heavy-drinkers-imbibe-less-when-housing-allows-alcohol/

Memmott, P.C. and Fantin, S. (2001) 'The long-grassers: A strategic report on Indigenous 'itinerants' in the Darwin and Palmerston area', University of Queensland

Memmott, P., Long, S. and Chambers, C. (2003). ‘A National Analysis of Strategies Used to Respond to Indigenous Itinerants and Public Place Dwellers’, Prepared for the Commonwealth National Homelessness Strategy, University of Queensland

Memmott, P., Long, S., Chambers, C., Spring, F. (2003) Categories of Indigenous 'homeless' people and good practice responses to their needs, AHURI Final Report No. 49, AHURI, Melbourne

Memmott.P, Bird-Jones.C, Greenop.K, (2012) ‘Why are special services needed to address Indigenous homelessness’ Institute of Social Science Research, The University of Queensland


Bibliography (continued)Memmott.P, Nash.D, (2012) ‘No Wrong Door? Managing Indigenous homeless clients in Mt Isa.’ The University of Queensland.

Memmott.P, Nash.D, (2016) ‘Housing conditionality, Indigenous lifewords and policy outcomes, Mt Isa Case Study’ AHURI

Mills, A., Thom, K., Maynard, A., Meehan, C., Kidd, J., Newcombe, D., &

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, (2014), ‘He Whare Ahuru He Oranga Tangata – The Maori Housing Strategy: Directions 2014-2025’ http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-services/housing-property/maori-housing-strategy/document-image-library/strategy.pdf

Ministry of Social Development, (2017), ‘Transitional Housing’ https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/social-housing/transitional-housing-fact-sheet.pdf

Morse, G. (1999) A Review of Case Management for People Who Are Homeless: Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research. IN FOSBURG, L. B. & DENNIS, D. L. (Eds.) Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Murphy.T, (2017) ‘what to do about Auckland’s 23,400 homeless’ Newsroom https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2017/07/18/39152/what-to-do-about-aucklands-23400-homeless

National Alliance to end homelessness, (2016), ‘the State of homelessness in America 2016’ https://endhomelessness.org/homelessness-in-america/homelessness-statistics/state-of-homelessness-report/

New Zealand Government, (2017), ‘$205m boost for social housing’ https://www.budget.govt.nz/budget/2017/releases/r22-adams-205m-boost-for-social-housing.htm

O’Grady, Bill, Gaetz, Stephen, & Buccieri, Kristy, (2011). Can I See Your ID? The Policing of Youth Homelessness in Toronto. (Toronto: JFCY & Homeless Hub)

OECD (2016), ‘HC3.1 Homeless Population’ Affordable Housing Database https://www.oecd.org/els/family/HC3-1-Homeless-population.pdf

Parsell. C, Phillips.R, ‘Indigenous Rough Sleeping in Darwin, Australia: ‘Out of Place’ in an Urban Setting’ , Urban Studies 51(1)185-202, January 2014

Parsell.C, Moutou (2014) ‘An evaluation of the nature and effectiveness of models of supportive housing’ AHUIR, University of Queensland

Parsell.C, Petersen.M, Moutous.O, Culhane.D, Lucio.E, Dick.A, (2015) ‘Evaluation of the Brisbane Common Ground Initiative’ Queensland Government, ISSR020387

Pathways Housing First, (2017), ‘Pathways Housing First’ https://www.pathwayshousingfirst.org/

Pauly. B, Gray.E, Perkin.K, Chow.C, Vallance.K, Krysowaty.B, Stockwell.T, (2016), ‘Finding Safety: a pilot study of managed alcohol program participants’ perceptions of housing and quality of life’ Harm Reduction Journal 13:15

People Project, (2017), ‘Rough sleeping dramatically reduced in Hamilton’ https://www.thepeoplesproject.org.nz/news/rough-sleeping-dramatically-reduced-in-hamilton

Phillips R. and Parsell C. (2012) The role of assertive outreach in ending ‘rough sleeping’, AHURI Final Report No.179. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute

Phillips.R, Parsell.C, Seage.N, Memmott.P, (2011)’Assertive Outreach’ AHURI Positioning Paper No.136

Poundmaker’s Lodge, About, http://poundmakerslodge.ca/about/

Quill.A, (2017), ‘Pop-up emergency housing village unveiled in Papamoa’ NZ Herald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11880769

Robinson.G, Cleary.J, Carson.D, Robinson.S, Carson.D (2012), ‘Homeless away from home’, Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, University of SA, The Northern Institute for Charles Darwin University, Flinders University Rural Clinical School

Robson.S, (2017), ‘$27m boost for rough sleeper accommodation’ RNZ http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/338419/27m-boost-for-rough-sleeper-accommodation

Rorke.B, (2016), ‘In the shadow of carrickmines: Irish Government violates Traveller Housing and Accommodation rights’ European Roma Rights Centre http://www.errc.org/blog/in-the-shadow-of-carrickmines-irish-government-violates-traveller-housing-and-accommodation-rights/105


Bibliography (continued)Spinney, A., Habibis, D. and McNelis, S. (2016) Safe and sound? How funding mix affects homelessness support for Indigenous Australians, AHURI Final Report No. 272, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne

Stephen Gaetz, Erin Dej, Tim Richter, & Melanie Redman (2016): The State of Homelessness in Canada 2016. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press

Sunderland City Council, (2017) ‘Gypsy and Traveller and Travelling show person accommodation’ http://www.sunderland.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=19048&p=0

Susan E. Collins, Daniel K. Malone, Seema L. Clifasefi, Joshua A. Ginzler, Michelle D. Garner MSW, Bonnie Burlingham, Heather S. Lonczak, Elizabeth A. Dana MA,Megan Kirouac, Kenneth Tanzer BA, William G. Hobson, G. Alan Marlatt, and MaryE. Larimer, (2012) ‘Project-Based Housing First for Chronically Homeless IndividualsWith Alcohol Problems: Within-Subjects Analyses of 2-Year Alcohol Trajectories’American Journal of Public Health

Talyor.A, ‘Investigations of changing Indigenous migration practices for the Northern Territory of Australia: theoretical and policy implications’ 2012

Taylor.P, Japanardi Walker.S, Marawili.B, ‘Message in the bottle: survey of drinking patterns and attitudes about alcohol policy amongst Darwin’s homeless’, Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation,

The BLOCK project, (no date), ‘the BLOCK Project Model’ http://www.the-block-project.com/the-block-project/

The Foundation Abbe Pierre – FEANTSA, (2017) ‘Second overview of housing exclusion in Europe’ http://www.feantsa.org/download/gb_housing-exclusion-report_complete_20178613899107250251219.pdf

Travellers Advice Team, part of the Community Law Partnership, (no date), ‘Gypsy Roma traveler integration strategy for England, accommodation issues’ http://www.communitylawpartnership.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/discussion%20paper.pdf

Twyford.P, Davidson.M, Fox.M, (2016), ‘Final Report of the cross party inquiry on homelessness’ https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/4725/attachments/original/1476053092/CPHI_report_final.pdf?1476053092

University of Victoria, (2016) ‘Overview of Managed Alcohol (MAP sites in Canada’ Centre for Additions Research of BC ttps://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/carbc/assets/docs/resource-overview-of-MAP-sites-in-Canada.pdf

University of Victoria, (2016) ‘Overview of Managed Alcohol (MAP sites in Canada’ Centre for Additions Research of BC ttps://www.uvic.ca/research/centres/carbc/assets/docs/resource-overview-of-MAP-sites-in-Canada.pdf

Vallance.K, , Stockwell.T, Pauly. B, Chow.C, Gray.E, Krysowaty.B, Perkin.K, (2016), ‘Do managed alcohol programs change patterns of alcohol consumption and reduce related harm? A pilot study’ Harm Reduction Journal 13:13

Walsh,T, Taylor,M. (2007) ‘You’re not welcome here: Police move on powers and discrimination law’ UNSW Law Journal volume 30(1)

Widdowson, D. (2015). Meeting the housing needs of vulnerable populations in New Zealand. Auckland: Transforming Cities, University of Auckland.

AppendicesAppendix 1: Survey questions, consent proforma and participant leaflet

Appendix 2: Current homelessness services in Darwin and Katherine

Appendix 3: Housing First in Australia

Appendix 4: Responses to rough sleepers in other jurisdictions

Appendix 5: International case studies for responses to rough sleeping and homelessness

Appendix 6: Survey results

Appendix 7: Excerpt from cost-effectiveness analysis for Apmere Mwerre Visitor Park

Appendix 1: Survey questions, consent proforma and participant leaflet


Appendix 1 – Survey questions and methodology

Survey of

rough sleepers

in Darwin and

Katherine Department of Housing and Community Development

November 2017 kpmg.com.au

Appendix 1 - Survey questions and methodology

Survey methodology Survey purpose

Survey purpose The purpose of the survey is to improve understanding about the experience of people sleeping rough in Darwin/Palmerston and Katherine. It is also anticipated that the survey will inform the development of a suite of options that will improve client outcomes and assist people to transition out of homelessness.

Survey design The survey is designed to be culturally appropriate and client centred for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people who are experiencing homelessness and sleeping rough, to identify:

• the number of rough sleepers, including demographic information;

• key drivers of homelessness amongst people who are sleeping rough in Darwin/Palmerston andKatherine;

• previous housing/homelessness history of clients surveyed;

• support needs to assist people who are sleeping rough to transition out of homelessness;

• supports needs for people wishing to continue sleeping rough in order to maintain their safety andwellbeing; and

• contact with other service systems, including health, policing and justice services (such asemergency admissions, arrests and legal aid services) in the previous 12 months, including highlevel costs of service utilisation.

Defining homelessness and rough sleepers The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) defines homelessness as a lack of one or more of the elements that represent ‘home’. These elements may include ‘a sense of security, stability, privacy, safety and the ability to control living space’.

Homelessness may also be understood under three categories:

• primary homelessness - sleeping on the streets, in derelict buildings or in cars;

• secondary homelessness - moving frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another(couch surfing with friends/family); and

• tertiary homelessness - living in boarding or rooming houses on a medium or long term basis.

This survey aims to target people who are ‘primary homeless’ and sleeping in makeshift camps out bush, near rivers, near beach and landscape park areas, on the side of the road, near small businesses that have isolated areas, in parks or paddocks. In the NT, ‘primary homelessness’ is often referred to as living ‘rough’ or ‘living in the long grass’. This survey may also include people who are experiencing secondary homelessness but have a history of primary homelessness. It is acknowledged that people may move between primary homelessness and secondary or tertiary homelessness throughout the year. This is often due to the seasonal aspects of the climate in the NT (e.g. sleeping rough when you

KPMG | 86 © 2016 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Document Classification: KPMG Confidential

cannot return to community in the wet season because roads are impassable) and also due to ceremonies and events (e.g. staying with family in a town camp when there is an event on but sleeping rough otherwise). The survey aims to unpack the experience of people sleeping rough, including details about the periods when they are homeless, how long they are homeless for and the reasons why. This will enable the Department to get a better sense of the magnitude of the problem in different categories of homelessness as well as better understand the everyday challenges of people sleeping rough.

Identifying homelessness and rough sleepers KPMG’s partner on this engagement, Cross Cultural Consultants (CCC), has employed Aboriginal Community Engagement Specialists (ACES) to complete the survey and research process. The ACES will work with community service providers and the Project Advisory Group to identify common places were rough sleepers congregate and the times at which they usually reside there. CCC will also leverage their established working relationships with key Aboriginal Service Organisations in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine such as Larrakia Nation and Kalano Community Association, to better target the delivery of the survey in places where people sleep rough.

Following a workshop with the Project Advisory Group, and meetings with other service providers, CCC has drafted a stakeholder engagement plan. The draft stakeholder engagement plan provides an indicative schedule of locations to look for rough sleepers to survey and when they intend to access these locations. An example might be to visit Rapid Creek foreshore in the early morning on Monday through to Wednesday but to exclude surveying on “pay day” Thursdays when some rough sleepers may be intoxicated. This draft scheduling would be based on advice from stakeholders who are in close contact with rough sleepers such as the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul and police. An important part of the engagement plan is working with stakeholders (particularly the Project Advisory Group) to identify both the ‘good days’ and the ‘bad days’ to access rough sleepers, as well as the best places to find them.

It is anticipated that it will take up to three weeks to finalise the stakeholder engagement plan. In CCC’s experience, it is beneficial to test a draft engagement plan with service providers and other stakeholders before submitting it to the Department for consideration and final approval. Developing a robust engagement plan in the three weeks before administering the survey will ensure that the survey has a good foundation to optimise the number of rough sleepers surveyed and to ensure the safety of both the surveyors and the people being surveyed.

Delivering the survey to people sleeping rough

Ethics approval process The collection of survey responses from rough sleepers and homeless people is considered to constitute ‘human research’. As such, the survey requires ethics approval from a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) registered with the National Health and Medical Research Council. A submission is being prepared for submission to the Menzies School of Health Research HREC on 27 September 2017. Notification of the Committee’s decision is generally provided within 10 working days.

It is acknowledged that the survey may be being delivered at the beginning of the wet season and that, as such, the population of people sleeping rough may be more (or less) than at other times of the year. For this reason, the survey will provide a point in time estimate and a ‘snap shot’ only of the rough sleeper population including the cultural mix and daily experiences of rough sleepers.

Who will deliver the survey? The survey will be delivered by local Aboriginal people with ties into the communities of rough sleepers in Darwin and Katherine. These people have been employed by CCC and are known as Aboriginal Community Engagement Specialists (ACES) and they will have conversations in either Kriol or Aboriginal English. The ACES are recruited based on relationships that CCC already has and information that CCC will gather in developing the stakeholder engagement plan. Depending on the



KPMG | 88

© 2016 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved. The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.


native language used by the potential survey participants, the ACES will also work alongside interpreters from the Department’s AIS. It is anticipated that the languages used by potential survey participants include among others, Yolngu, Anindilyakwa, Nunggubuyu, Tiwi and Warlpiri.

It is acknowledged that the survey participants may readily identify their needs (e.g. wanting to return to their community or access income support) and that the ACES will need to be able to respond to this. As part of the development of the engagement plan, CCC will collect information relating to the common and preferred referral pathways for rough sleepers and homeless people (e.g. rough sleepers identified by the Larrakia Nation Night Patrol are commonly referred to Danila Dilba for health services). This information will be provided to the ACES as part of their training so that they are readily able to respond to the identified needs of homeless people in an appropriate way.

How will the survey be delivered? The survey will be delivered through structured conversations or ‘narratives’, in order to tease out information from the survey respondent without necessarily guiding their answers or asking blunt questions. This style of survey has proven useful on other consultations that CCC has delivered for evaluations and reviews, to elicit information in a culturally appropriate and engaging way.

It is also anticipated that if ACES are delivering a survey to rough sleepers in a curious and conversational manner then there is less risk of the survey triggering an adverse response due to the respondent recalling trauma or a difficult event in their past. The ACES themselves have a strong understanding of what could be perceived as disrespectful or culturally insensitive and therefore provide an important regulator of the appropriateness of the questions being asked throughout the narrative.

It is critical that the narratives are structured enough to cover all of the survey questions but flexible enough to be inoffensive or culturally inappropriate. For this reason, ACES will be trained in how to deliver the survey and interact with the target cohort. The ACES will also be trained by AIS in how to work with interpreters.

The survey will be delivered over a 7-week timeframe, at times of the day when rough sleepers are likely to congregate e.g. early in the morning. To facilitate the development of a safe environment in which rough sleepers may be willing to participate in the survey, KPMG is providing funding for a series of barbeques which will be run by the Larrakia Nation and other organisations in Darwin and Katherine. Larrakia Nation already provides barbeques at Casuarina Beach for rough sleepers and they have offered to hold barbeques in a range of areas across Darwin and Palmerston to facilitate the convening of rough sleepers from a range of backgrounds. There will not be any conditions for providing food – rough sleepers will be free to take the food and not participate in the survey. However, ACES will use these barbeques as an opportunity to try to engage with rough sleepers and ask whether they would like to be part of some research for the NT Government.

How will the ACES be trained? The ACES will be trained and supported by CCC and they will complete a “Walking in Two Worlds” program, to ensure that the context is understood and can be communicated to the respondents. This training will take at least 1 week and will include the following components:

• understanding the context of the project including the type of information that the Departmentexpects to be collected in response to particular questions;

• developing a narrative to support the context and make the data collection relevant to therespondents;

• understanding the services and supports currently available for people who are sleeping rough orhomeless – this will be informed by advice from the Project Advisory Group and service providers;

• understanding of mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse and domestic violence;

• training in the use of the Ipad data collection system;

• occupational health and safety training; and

• general Induction

CCC understands that as part of the training it will be important to familiarise the ACES with the survey tool and the response options that could be used. For example, if it is identified that a survey respondent has previously accessed services, then the narrative conversation needs to dig deeper and unpack what kind of services they were e.g. hospital, clinical, shelter advice.

It is also recognised that given that a number of homeless people have a history of trauma and experience alcohol and other drug dependencies, there is a risk that the delivery of the survey may trigger an adverse reactions from survey respondents. Part of the training aims to educate ACES in how to identify this risk before it is realised and take steps to mitigate the situation. Additionally, the stakeholder engagement plan is designed to reduce this risk by avoiding the delivery of the survey at times that are not conducive to effectively engaging rough sleepers e.g. pay days.

A critical part of the delivery of the survey is the engagement plan which provides details on when the survey should be delivered, based on the rhythm of the communities in which rough sleepers are being identified as potential survey participants. The engagement plan enables ACES to approach rough sleepers at times when they feel least vulnerable and more willing to participate e.g. when they are convening to eat as part of their group or ‘mob’.

How will the survey data be recorded? The survey will be conducted using a notebook and clipboard to record question responses. This method will allow for selection of optional responses (as indicated in the survey tool in Appendix 1) but also provide for free text recording of data. It is anticipated that ACES will collect information in in a notebook and then return to the car to input the data into the iPad. The purpose of this data collection process is to prevent any perceptions of cultural insensitivity which might be caused by openly recording data straight into the iPad during conversations.

Survey tool A copy of the survey tool is provided in Appendix 1. This survey tool has been developed based on the data anticipated to be required to better understand the experience of people sleeping rough in Darwin/Palmerston and Katherine (refer Survey purpose). It has also been developed in a way that presents the data requested as part of the Survey design (refer Survey purpose) on the left hand side of the table and describes the way in which this information will be elicited on the right hand side of the table. As indicated above the primary mechanism for gathering information about the experience of rough sleepers will be through narrative and guided conversation. The narratives are broken down into three key themes:

Place which considers where the survey respondent is from and how they became homeless;

Space which considers the survey respondent’s current circumstances, what they like about their current situation and what might prompt them to change; and

Interaction which considers the services that the survey respondent currently uses (or doesn’t use) and what other supports (if any) they might need.



KPMG | 90



Appendix A: Survey tool

Desired survey information How this information might be elicited through narrative

I. Survey location e.g. Daly Street BridgeII. Time at which survey is undertaken

III. Count of people at locationIV. Summary of demographics at location

• Age• Gender

This first part of the survey will be based on the ACES observation of the location in which they identify rough sleepers. The following questions are part of a ‘deeper dive’ survey with individual participants.

ACES will estimate how many people are at the location and estimate the proportion of people who are a particular gender and in a particular age bracket.

1. Does the survey respondent consent tohaving their information collected toinform the policy relating tohomelessness?The survey respondent will not beidentified in any way.

2. If the survey respondent has anyissues/complaints to be made about theprocess they can make them to theCCC.

ACTION: ACES will document that verbal consent has been obtained.

Pro-forma for verbal consent will be read out by the ACES and the participant will be provided with a leaflet which will inform them about the project. The leaflet will also provide the contact details of someone from the research team and the ethics committee, in case they have any queries or concerns about the project.

Introduction:

In every instance, the ACES will introduce themselves to survey respondents, through their family, skin name / community connections and through the project. Respondents will be informed about both confidentiality and their right not to participate. The survey respondents will be informed that:

• the NT Government would like to knowabout their experience of being homelessso that they can develop solutions

• the ACES need to get some informationfrom them to better inform the NTGovernment decisions for homelesspeople

• the information will be kept confidentialand de-identified and will not be used foranything else except this project

KPMG | 91



• if they want to stop thesurvey/conversation at any time, they arewelcome to do so.

• CCC are the point through whichcomplaints and any queries can be madeabout the project. If the surveyrespondent does not want to talk to CCCthey will be referred to a localorganisation, external to the project e.g.Larrakia Nation or Kalano.

CCC and KPMG will inform the Department of any complaints / queries so that we can determine the best method for addressing these issues.

3. Demographic characteristics of surveyrespondent:• Age• Gender• Married/single• Parent• Place of birth/origin• Tribe• Cultural and/or ethnic affiliation

Place:

The ACES will use a narrative about ‘place’ to start a conversation with the survey respondent about:

• where they came from,• what life was like there, and• the reason/s the survey respondent left

that place e.g. boredom, education,couldn’t afford to get home, violence,overcrowding etc.

The ACES will also use this narrative to initiate a discussion about whether the survey respondent would like to return to that place, and what help they might need to get back there. Additionally, the survey respondent will be encouraged to talk about how long they have been homeless.

In this narrative around place, the ACES will also discuss with the survey respondent their cultural background and ethnicity. The ACES will note information about the survey respondent’s gender and try to elicit information about the age of the survey respondent. If the survey respondent is not certain about their age, the ACES will put down an estimate age and note that this is just an estimate, not an actual response.

The purpose of this narrative-based discussion is also to draw out information relating to the survey respondents close immediate family (children, partner) including details about where these family members are now.

4. Demographic characteristics of familywith survey respondent:• Age• Gender• Married/single• Parent

In section about Place, refer to question 3

KPMG | 92



• Place of birth/origin

5. Cultural and/or ethnic affiliation In section about Place, refer to question 3

6. Where do you currently live? In section about Space, refer to question 7

7. Where do you live most of the time?If they sleep rough most of the time: • where do you sleep rough (could

be more than one place)?• what is your preferred place for

sleeping rough?• how many different places have

you stayed in over the lastmonth?

Space:

The ACES will use a narrative about space to gather information about the survey respondent’s current experience and living circumstances. The following information will be gathered as part of a conversational narrative:

• where the survey respondent lives now;• how many people sleep in the same

place with them;• whether it is a dry season or wet season

space and what difference that makes;• what concerns they have daily or what

decisions they make;• would they like a place where the

children can be better cared for;• what might that place look like;• what rules should it have;• how much of their income would people

be willing to pay for shelter.

As part of the narrative about the survey respondent’s current space, the ACES will try to find out whether the survey respondent is currently working, whether they would like to work and what is stopping them from getting a job.

As part of the narrative about the survey respondent’s current space, the ACES will also explore the hard things about living rough as well as the aspects that people like about living rough

8. Do you have a regular income?If they have an income: • Where does your income come

from?– Centrelink – which

payment?– Job– Family– Basics card / money– Community money from

mining royalties• Who does your income support?

– yourself– partner– children or extended family

In section about Interface, refer to question 9

KPMG | 93



9. How/why did you become homeless? Interface:

The narrative about interface aims to gather information about the points at which rough sleepers and homeless people interact with services.

The ACES will use this narrative to explore:

• what services people currently access;• how often they access particular types of

services;• what the cost of accessing these

services might be;• what types of transport they use to get

to services and around town;• what type of services or supports they

might like to see developed;• whether they own or have access to a

mobile phone or smartphone; and• what things/people they use the phone

to connect to.

This narrative about interface will also explore whether people:

• are on a public housing wait list or havebeen in the past;

• have had shelter in Darwin or Katherinein the past; and

• if they have had shelter in the past, theACE will try to discuss what happened orwhat the survey respondent did/didn’tlike about that shelter option.

Survey respondents will also be encouraged to talk about:

• whether they want to stay homeless;• whether they are happy with being

homeless and their current personalcircumstances;

• whether some form of shelter wouldhelp support their lifestyle; and

• what forms of shelter would meet theirneeds.

The ACES will also explore what the respondents think will happen to them if they stay homeless, but this will happen as the narrative unfolds.

It is acknowledged that there could be a range of reasons that people become homeless including changes to government policy around social benefit payments (e.g. community development employment project payments); legal restrictions on drinking; and moving to a regional centre for education or work. This will be unpacked as part of the Interface narrative.

KPMG | 94



10. How long have you been homeless orsleeping rough?

In section about Place, refer to question 3

11. What concerns do you have aboutsleeping rough?• Health• Comfort• Safety• Loneliness• Quality of sleep

In section on Interface, refer question 9

12. Do you want to stop sleeping rough? In section on Interface, refer question 9

13. What supports do you need while youare sleeping rough?• Showers• Toilets• Lockers• Laundry• Shelter• Health advice/service• Kitchen facilities• Storage facilities• Food service• Recharge/power facilities


14. What do you need to transition out ofsleeping rough and being homeless?


15. Will you seek assistance or a meal at ahomelessness service later today? If so,where at?• Church e.g. Anglicare• St Vinnies or Salvos• Larrakia Nation


16. What other kinds of supports are youalready accessing?• Health

− Hospital or Clinic− Ambulance

• Justice support for previous offenceor incarceration

• Food/shelter support− Church e.g. Anglicare− St Vinnies− Salvos− Larakia Nation− Stanley House, Oakley

House (YWCA)• Town camp amenities• Youth services• Friends/family


KPMG | 95



17. What types of transportation do you useto get around?• Walk• Family or friends vehicle• Public transport• Taxi• Night/day patrol vehicle

section on Interface, refer question 9

18. Do you have a mobile phone? In section on Interface, refer question 9

19. Do you use the phone to contact familyand/or search for information?


20. Are you on a public housing waiting list? In section on Interface, refer question 9


Appendix 1 – Consent proforma

Consent

pro-forma for

verbal consentDepartment of Housing and Community Development


Appendix 1 - Consent proforma

KPMG | 98



Pro-forma for use by ACES Obtaining verbal consent

Project Responses to homelessness – a survey of rough sleepers in Darwin and Katherine

The Northern Territory (NT) Department of Housing and Community Development has commissioned a survey of homeless people and rough sleepers. This survey aims to improve the NT Government’s understanding about the experience of people sleeping rough in Darwin/Palmerston and Katherine. It is also anticipated that the survey will inform the development of a suite of options that will improve client outcomes and assist people to transition out of homelessness.

Coordinating Principal Investigator

Tina Davey, Director, KPMG, 0411 381 417, [email protected]

Principal Investigator

Jason Elsegood, Director, Cross Cultural Consultants, 0417 864 769, [email protected]

Human Research Ethics Committee of the NT Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research

Contact: 08 8946 8600, [email protected]

Obtaining verbal declaration of consent by participant over 18 years of age The Aboriginal Community Engagement Specialists (ACES) will ensure that they receive verbal confirmation of the following for each survey participant over the age of 18:

• the survey participant has read the Participant Information Sheet (refer Appendix B);

• the survey participant understands the purpose, procedures and risks of the research described inthe project;

• the survey participant has had an opportunity to ask any questions that they have about theproject and they are satisfied with the responses that they have received;

• the survey participant agrees to the recording (via written notes on a clipboard) of theirinformation and participation;

• the survey participant is aware that they should retain a copy of the Participant Information Sheetfor future reference;

• the survey participant understands that:

i. they may not directly benefit from taking part in this research.

KPMG | 99



ii. they are free to withdraw from the project at any time and are free to decline to answerparticular questions.

iii. while the information gained in this study will be shared with the NT Department of Housingand Community Development, as explained, the survey participant will not be identified, andindividual information will remain confidential.

iv. whether the survey participant participates in the survey or not, or withdraws afterparticipating, will have no effect on any treatment or service that is being provided to them.

v. whether the survey participant participates in the survey or not, or withdraws afterparticipating, will have no effect on the progress of the research, or results gained.

vi. the survey participant may ask that the recording/observation be stopped at any time, andthat they may withdraw at any time from the narrative interview without disadvantage.

vii. the ACES interviewer/researcher is obliged to adhere to the NT mandatory reportingrequirements and that any identified child abuse or domestic violence will be reported to thepolice.

Obtaining verbal declaration of consent by participant’s Guardian The ACES will ensure that they receive verbal confirmation of the following for each survey participant under the age of 18:

• the Guardian has read the Participant Information Sheet (refer Appendix B);

• the Guardian is authorised to provide consent, as the young person’s Guardian, for the youngperson to participate in the research;

• the Guardian understands the purpose, procedures and risks of the research described in theproject;

• the Guardian has had an opportunity to ask any questions that they have about the project andthey are satisfied with the responses that they have received;

• the Guardian agrees to the recording (via written notes on a clipboard) of the young person’sinformation and participation;

• the Guardian is aware that they should retain a copy of the Participant Information Sheet for futurereference;

• the Guardian understands that the young person will provide their own informed consent toparticipate in the research and will not be obliged to participate;

• the Guardian understands that the ACES interviewer/researcher is obliged to adhere to the NTmandatory reporting requirements and that any identified child abuse or domestic violence will bereported to the police.

• the young survey participant understands that:

viii. they may not directly benefit from taking part in this research.

ix. they are free to withdraw from the project at any time and are free to decline to answerparticular questions.

x. while the information gained in this study will be shared with the NT Department of Housingand Community Development, as explained, the survey participant will not be identified, andindividual information will remain confidential.

xi. whether the survey participant participates in the survey or not, or withdraws afterparticipating, will have no effect on any treatment or service that is being provided to them.

xii. whether the survey participant participates in the survey or not, or withdraws afterparticipating, will have no effect on the progress of the study, or results gained.

KPMG | 100



xiii. the survey participant may ask that the recording/observation be stopped at any time, andthat they may withdraw at any time from the narrative interview without disadvantage.

xiv. the ACES interviewer/researcher is obliged to adhere to the NT mandatory reportingrequirements and that any identified child abuse or domestic violence will be reported to thepolice.


Appendix 1 – Leaflet for participants

Leaflet for

participants Department of Housing and Community Development


Appendix 1 - Leaflet for participants

Participant Information Sheet The project

Responses to homelessness – a survey of rough sleepers in Darwin and Katherine The Northern Territory (NT) Department of Housing and Community Development (the Department) recognises that there are a number of people sleeping rough in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine. The Department is interested in better understanding the experience of people sleeping rough so that they can develop a suite of options that will better support people who are sleeping rough. To deliver this project, Cross Cultural Consultants (CCC) is surveying homeless people and rough sleepers about their experience.

How will your information be used? This information will be collected in notebooks during the interviewed and later typed up and shared with the Department. While the information is being shared with the Department, it will not be identified in any way and you will not be disadvantaged by participating in the survey. The survey is voluntary and all information provided by survey participants is confidential.

If you choose to participate in the survey you are free to withdraw from the project at any time and free to decline to answer particular questions. You are also entitled to ask that the interview be stopped at any time of your choosing.

Aboriginal Community Engagement Specialists (ACES) are the interviewers for the survey and will adhere to the NT’s mandatory reporting requirements. This means that if the ACES interviewer identifies child abuse or harm and exploitation of an individual they will report this to the police, including (where possible) details of the perpetrator. In any instance where the ACES interviewers are required to report details to the police, they will not share this information with any other party.

Who can you talk to if you have any concerns? Coordinating Principal Investigator

Tina Davey, Director, KPMG, 0411 381 417, [email protected]

Principal Investigator

Jason Elsegood, Director, Cross Cultural Consultants, 0417 864 769, [email protected]

Human Research Ethics Committee of the NT Department of Health and Menzies School of Health Research

Contact: 08 8946 8600, [email protected]



Appendix 2: Services in Darwin and Katherine


Appendix 2 – Services in Darwin & Katherine

Service Provider

Program Description Model

Salvation Army Red Shield Hostel

(Darwin)

Sunrise Centre Homeless Men’s

(Palmerston)

Doorway hub

(Katherine)

Beacon

(Katherine)

Provides single homeless people over 18 years with short to 6 month single room accommodation at budget rates. In addition, case workers hold weekly meetings to enough self –determination.

Short term accommodation and case management support for homeless men.

Two year pilot program (commencing October xx) will provide homeless with showers, washing machines, dryers and lockers.

Staffed safe room to provide homeless with a safe place to interact and pursue daily activities, including watching movies. In addition,

Short and medium term accommodation

Support facilities drop in centre

Safe room

St Vincent de Paul’s

Ted Collins Village

(Darwin)

Bakhita Centre

(Darwin)

Mobile Kitchen/ Soup Van

(Darwin)

Ozanam House

(Darwin)

Ormonde House

(Katherine)

Accommodation (6-12 months) available to single, parent, families, couples, disabled, young and old of those at risk or experiencing homelessness.

Medium to long term supported accommodation and meals for single men over 18 years.

Provides light meals and drinks from Monday to Friday between 5:30pm-6:30pm

Provide homeless people with showers, washing machines and dryers and meals including breakfast and lunch.

Medium to long term supported accommodation and meals for single men over 18 years.

Short and medium term accommodation

Outreach service

Drop-centre

Table A2.1


Appendix 2 – Services in Darwin & Katherine Service Provider


Dawn House

(Darwin and Palmerston)

Dawn House


Crisis accommodation, safe accommodation and specialist housing services are available for women and children who are experiencing or escaping domestic violence.

Street to home

Crisisaccommodation

Case management

Aboriginal Hostel Limited

Daisy Yarmirr Hostel (Darwin)

Galawu Hostel (Darwin)

Nagandji Nagandji-Ba (Darwin)

Silas Roberts Hostel (Darwin)

Corroboree Hostel (Katherine)

Fordimail Student Hostel (Katherine)

Katherine Women’s Medical Hostel

Short term accommodation for Aboriginal people who need to access services when being away from their communities. Some of the hostels include meals (e.g. Galawu Hostel and Silas Roberts Hostel).

Short term accommodation

Somerville Community

Medium term accommodation

(Palmerston and Katherine)

Limited medium term supported accommodation available for homeless families and individuals and support services for counselling.

Transitional supported accommodation

Outreach services

Darwin Aboriginal and Islander Women’s Shelter

Women’s Shelter

(Darwin)

Provides support, referral, outreach and domestic violence crisis accommodation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women who are homeless or escaping family violence.

Crisis accommodation

Mission Australia Supported Accommodation

(Darwin)

Short term youth accommodation for men over 18 years at risk of or homeless. Short term accommodation

Table A2.2




Danila Dilba Aboriginal health practitioner

(Darwin)

Mobile clinic providing health care outreach services Aboriginal people who are rough sleeping.

Outreach services

Anglicare NT Reconnect


Youth Accommodation Support Services

(Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine)

Couch Surfing for Youth Homelessness

(Darwin)

Assistance with Care and Housing

(Darwin)

Garaworra Housing

(Palmerston)

Katherine Family Accommodaiton Support Services

(Katherine)

Youth homelessness early intervention services for young people between 12 – 18 years who are at risk of or homeless, including support for community events, meetings and pathway guidance.

Medium term accommodation and outreach support for young people between 15-19 years who are at risk of or homeless.

National event to build awareness of youth homeliness matters day.

Provides guidance and linkages to referral services for older Aborigninal people who are at risk of or homeless.

Provides accommodation and case management support for people who are risk of or homeless to longer term housing.

Short to medium term accommodation for families at risk of or homeless and support services including counselling and financial guidance.

Short to medium term accommodation

Outreach services

Table A2.3




Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation

Return to home

(Darwin)

Night Patrol

(Darwin)

HEAL

(Darwin)

Assisting Aboriginal homeless people and those visiting Darwin who need help to arrange travel to return back to their community. The service is no longer funded by government.

Night patrol services run three vehicles seven nights a week, as an early intervention to remove people and homeless from danger.

Monitor, support and transport rough sleepers to medical appointments. The program also facilitates ‘Arts in the Grass provides an opportunity for rough sleepers to come together and enjoy art activities.

Return to Country

Moving on

Outreach

Council for Aboriginal Alcohol Program Services

Homelessness Outreach


In partnership with St Vincent DePaul NT facilitate a 12-16 week residential and youth withdrawal medically supervised program with accommodation targeted for Aboriginal people, particularly those at risk of or homeless. Clients are mostly Darwin and Tiwi Islands and few from the Katherine and other remote regions.

157 clients - 57 children - average age 20.5 years

Case management

Short term accommodation with onsite support services

YWCA Casy House

(Darwin)

Domestic and Family Violence Centre

(Palmerston)

Short term accommodation, meals and outreach support for young people between 15-18 years who are at risk of or homeless.

Accommodation and support for families escaping from domestic violence.

Crisisaccommodation

Kalano Community Association

Community Patrol

Inc - Venndale Rehabilitation and Withdrawal Centre

(Katherine)

A community intervention program to assist with anti-social behavior, who work closely with the NT Police and Town Council.

Moving on

Table A2.4




NT Department of Health and Mission Australia

Sobering up shelter

(Darwin and Katherine)

Provides overnight accommodation to rough sleepers people under the influence of alcohol or other drugs who have been delivered to the shelter by the Northern Territory Police or the community Night Patrol service. No self-admissions are accepted.

Harm-minimisation

City of Darwin Assertive Outreach Team

(Darwin)

The Assertive Outreach Team provide a pop-up each morning from Monday to Friday to engage with rough sleepers in order to link them with services and agencies.

Outreach

Table A2.5

Noting that there are no specific services for homelessness or rough sleepers in Palmerston

Appendix 3: Housing First in Australia


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.1 Common Ground - single site housing with outreach support

What?

The Common Ground model was designed based on the Housing First approach. There are a range of Common Ground initiatives across Australia (refer examples listed at right) which all offer housing with supportive services, focused on addressing the needs of long-term homeless people or rough sleepers.78 The onsite support services for Common Ground models usually include 24 hour security and support workers/ case coordinators to assist tenants with accessing services. The Common Ground model originated in New York and was originally designed to promote empowerment and independence, particularly for people with mental illness who are prone to developing service dependency.

Common Grounds six principles include the following:79

• Permanence – there is no time limit on leases for formerly homeless tenants.

• Safety – a 24-hour concierge restricts entry to the building

• Supportive – social services are provided on site at no cost to the tenant

• Integrated – projects normally house a mix of both formerly chronically homeless tenants and low income earners

• Affordable – rent is charged to all tenants at less than 30% of income.

• Quality – buildings incorporate sophisticated design and high environmental ratings

Why?

The Common Ground model was established in most of the locations in Australia because there was a recognised need to reduce the utilization of acute, crisis and emergency services by the chronically homeless, and there was an identified need to support people at risk of homelessness with sustaining housing.80

Is it working?

In 2015, the University of Queensland evaluated the Common Ground model in Brisbane and found that it was effective in removing barriers for people experiencing chronic homelessness to access support and housing. The Common Ground model also fostered the conditions necessary for tenants to sustain housing. Of the 217 people who were allocated a tenancy at Brisbane Common Ground between 2012 and 2015, 69 people exited with around half of these people gaining housing through low to moderate income stream and the other half gaining housing because of chronic homelessness.81 The other tenants still resided in Common Ground.82 Qualitative evidence from the evaluation of Brisbane’s Common Ground indicated that the majority of respondents reported improvements to their lives including physical and mental health, life satisfaction and socializing. The study also revealed tenants who continued to report on health problems or substance use continued to sustain their tenancies.83

An evaluation of the Common Ground model in Sydney by the University of New South Wales also found the model to be effective in terms of sustaining tenancy with 63% of long-term homeless clients retaining their tenancy.84 The evaluation of the Sydney Common Ground also noted improvements in physical and mental health condition as well as quality of life for tenants who participated in the evaluation. However, contrasting results include that: hospital service

Examples

Brisbane Common Ground (South Brisbane, QLD)

Opened in 2012, 146 units with voluntary onsite support providers and tenancy managers. Average length of tenancy 2.8 years (Elizabeth). Delivered and funded by Qld Government and business community partnership.85

Common Ground Adelaide and Port Augusta (SA)

Australia’s first Common Ground model was established in Adelaide in 2008. In 2013 a complex in Port Augusta was established to cater primarily to Aboriginal people.

Average length of tenancy 2.2 years86

Common Ground Sydney (NSW)

‘The Camperdown Project, is Australia’s largest common ground establishment with 104 units. 93% of tenancies sustained since opening87

Common Ground Melbourne (VIC)

The 11 story building was built in 2011 with 65 units. Average length of tenancy 2 years88

Common Ground Hobart (TAS)

Built in 2008 a 97 unit complex and another complex in 2012 with 47 units.

Common Ground Canberra (ACT)

40 unit complex, including 20 units targeted at rough sleepers and 20 units targeted at low income earners


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.2 Common Ground - single site housing with outreach support

utilisation remained mostly stable – there was no reduction; the majority of tenants participating in the evaluation remained unemployed; and many tenants had built up high levels of rent in arrears. As stakeholders noted during the evaluation, this could be due to the impacts of long-term homelessness, disadvantage, disabilities and health problems on the tenants, which can make change and improvement in other life areas slow.89

Strengths

• The ability to create and design supportive housing to be socially inclusive and safe without establishing an institution.• Voluntary nature of support services were more successful in engaging people and were driven by key relationships.• Tenants have access to staff on site who understand their individual complex needs and mental conditions.• 24 hour security keeps tenants safe. 90

Weaknesses

• Tenants may prefer to have their own facilities instead of sharing, particularly people with mental illness – there islimited evidence of benefits experienced by disadvantaged people after social mixing.91

• Tenants may be limited in achieving true privacy under what is considered a controlled environment. 92

• Most Common Ground models involve high-density living because of the shortage of space in urban areas and somepeople are not suited to high-density living.93

• Putting the “hardest-to-house” in some of the most challenging living environments for Australians and small spaces,close together, with many shared spaces.94

• To qualify for a place at Common Ground, potential tenants must be able to pay rent which means people need tohave an income of some sort e.g. government benefit or a job.95

• There is a risk that congregating multiple people with complex needs in one location could create dependency andinstitutionalisation among tenants and may compound management problems (e.g. managing conflicts) andstigmatisation96 although the evaluation of the Brisbane Common Ground found that there was no stigmatisation feltor identified by tenants.


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.3 Youth Foyer - single site housing with outreach support

What?

The Youth Foyer model is focused on young homeless people, generally between the ages of 16-14 years, and aims to provide young people with permanent accommodation and onsite support services for up to 24 months, in order to reduce dependence on social services.97 Although Foyer models tend to focus on teenagers, there are models that are designed to meet a broader age cohort between 16 and 25 years of age.98 The five core features of Youth Foyers are as follows:

• A ‘Deal’ – a two-way, ‘something-for-something’ deal between the Foyer and the young person. The young personhas to engage in education and/or employment and the Foyer has to source and provide the necessary support forthe young person to meet their end of the deal.

• Home First – while staying at a Foyer is time-limited, it provides a ‘home first’ approach for young people that isholistic in the sense that it provides affordable, safe accommodation, education and training, health and wellbeingsupport and living skills.

• Promotes talents and aspirations – the Foyer model does not focus on disadvantage but instead seeks to promote theaspirations of young people.

• Provides networks and opportunities – Foyers recognize that young people require a range of networks to meet theiraspirations and so Foyers need to demonstrate that they can source and offer access to a range of opportunities

• Community resources – Foyers need to show that they can engage with people and ensure that young people haveaccess to local community resources e.g. local sporting, cultural and community groups.

A key difference between the Youth Foyer model and other Housing First models, which have an ‘opt-in’ approach to using support services, is that the Youth Foyer model mandates participation in education and employment programs.

Why?

The Foyer model was developed in France in the mid- nineteenth century in an effort to secure accommodation for young itinerant workers following World War II.99 The model has a core focus on education, while providing safe and affordable accommodation, as a means of stimulating young people to seek out and take advantage of opportunities.

Is it working?

In 2013, the South West Sydney Youth Hub project was evaluated to determine the effectiveness of the Foyer model. The evaluation found that the link between safe, affordable housing and education was supporting a successful transition to independence. Additionally, on a case-by-case basis, the barriers experienced by young people for accessing educational or employment opportunities were being identified and addressed. 100 However, areas in which there was an identified need for improvement included effective service collaboration across agencies in responding to youth homelessness and successful coordination of services to deliver an integrated service response to youth homelessness and unemployment.101

Examples

South West Sydney Youth Hub (NSW)

The first Foyer model in Australia was managed by Mission Australia. The complex incorporates the Foyer model of supported accommodation and intensive case management and secondary support for those exiting juvenile justice centre.

Foyer Oxford (Perth, WA)

Built in 2014, the 98 unit complex provides young people at risk of or homeless accommodation and support services to help through education and employment.

Our Place (ACT)

Since 2011, Anglicare and Barnardos have operated in a partnership to accommodate youth homeless using the Foyer Model in the ACT.

Holmesglen Foyer (VIC)

40 units are located on the Institute of TAFE’s Waverley campus.

Logan Youth Foyer Support Service (QLD)

The Logan Youth Foyer Support Service (LYFSS) provides supported accommodation and case management for single young people aged 16-25 years who are engaged in education and training.


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.4 Youth Foyer - single site housing with outreach support

The evaluation of South West Youth Hub indicated that 9% of the 145 youth assisted by the organisation between 2009 and 2012 had been sleeping rough. Approximately 82% of these 145 young people were assisted into long term accommodation with ongoing support. Of those people who were assisted into long term accommodation, 69% where transitioned into social housing, 6% into private rental accommodation and 4% into specialist homelessness services (3% not recorded). In addition, it was found the average length of campus tenancy was 28 weeks. 102

Our Place in Canberra was also evaluated by Anglicare in 2015. This evaluation constituted a small sample, only 12 interviews with young people who had stayed at Our Place and participated in programs and exited the facility in the previous 12-18 months. All of the young people interviewed were living independently when the evaluation was undertaken and, from their responses, none appeared to be in a situation of homelessness. Of the 12 young people, 6 were still studying and the other 6 were employed. 103 Seven respondents reported learning, or improving, some of their skills while at Our Place, and 4 reported that they did not. Those who commented referred to increasing their independence and building on their living skills.104 While the small sample in this evaluation makes it difficult to assess whether Our Place is achieving the desired goals of reducing homelessness and specifically the number of young people experiencing homelessness, it does show that the Our Place model is achieving positive change for young people in the ACT.

A third and ongoing evaluation is KPMG’s evaluation of the Foyer Oxford model in Leedervillle, WA. Since opening in February 2014, Foyer Oxford has housed more than 200 young people. In 2015, 67 young people left Foyer Oxford and 60 of these young people secured long term accommodation. Of the 60 young people who entered long term accommodation, 31% found the accommodation through a family connection, 51% went into the private rental market, 8% used another transitional service and 10% went into accommodation which was considered permanent but potentially unstable. This evaluation indicates that the majority of young people exiting do find permanent accommodation and continue to study or work.105

Strengths

• The holistic focus on well being and life skills provides the foundations for young people to live independently and sustain studies or employment as well as stableaccommodation.106

• This model is specifically designed to target young people.107

Weaknesses

• The model is typically driven to support young homeless people in initially identified as being crisis. This can make it difficult to effectively integrate support services toachieve longer term outcomes because the provider is initially ‘reacting’ rather than ‘responding’ to a crisis situation.108

• If there is limited housing stock available or limited accommodation, this can result in young homeless people staying longer in crisis accommodation or return to thestreets after leaving specialist homelessness services.


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.5 Street to Home - Scattered site housing with outreach support

What?

The Street to Home model is based on the “scattered site” version of the Housing First model which provides outreach support to rough sleepers (refer page 16). Most Street to Home models focus on providing case management services and accommodation to the most vulnerable rough sleepers. For this reason, many models of Street to Home identify and prioritise high needs homeless people based on an assessment tool. The most common assessment tool is the Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT). In some jurisdictions (e.g. Melbourne) ‘registry weeks’ are scheduled to identify and prioritise homeless people for case management. However, in other jurisdictions (e.g. SA and WA), identification and prioritisation is done on a daily basis.109

Case-managed clients in WA and SA are identified through streetwork or referral processes.110 This differs from the NT where potential Street to Home clients are selected in a number of ways depending on the processes preferred by each agency, for example, an application process in St Vincent de Paul in which staff consider the information they have about each potential client.111

Why?

The Street to Home model is based on a Street to Home model originally developed in New York which aimed to identify rough sleepers that may not be accessing homelessness services and offer them permanent accommodation with support services (i.e. a Housing First model with outreach).112

Is it working?

In 2015, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) evaluated Melbourne’s Street to Home project over a 2 year timeframe, based on interviews with project participants and stakeholders. The results included the following:113

• After 24 months, 70% of clients were housed and 80% of them had been housed for one year or longer - amongstthose on an adult pathway the success rate was 79%, whereas the success rate was 62% amongst those on a youthpathway.

• There was a significant improvement in the participants’ physical and mental health in the first 12 months.

• The number admitted to hospital in the preceding three months had declined from 32% at the first interview to 11%at the final interview; and the number of people using an emergency department in the preceding three months fellfrom 42% at the first interview to 18% at the final interview.

• Clients had begun to improve their relationships with family and friends.

Challenges identified during the evaluation included the following:

• It was more difficult to help clients who first became homeless as teenagers

Examples

Brisbane’s Street to home (QLD)

Provides housing to 62 tenants in long term accommodation and proactively monitors and engages with them through the use of Vulnerability Index - Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT), which is used to identify each person’s housing and support needs.

Melbourne Street to Home (VIC)

The Street to Home in Melbourne is targeted at 45 chronic cases of rough sleepers . A registry week is held to identify those most at risk and VI-SPDAT is used as an assessment tool.

Perth Street to Home (WA)

The program is available to people over 18 years and has eight specialist homelessness services and mental health mobile clinic outreach teams.

Sydney Street to Home (NSW)

A registry week provides an opportunity to survey a large number of people experiencing rough sleeping.


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.6 Street to Home - Scattered site housing with outreach support

• The rate of improvement in participants’ physical and mental health slowed in the second 12 months after coming off the streets so it was difficult to maintain themomentum of change.

• the proportion using alcohol and other drugs did not change markedly over the 24 months

In 2012, the Flinders University reviewed the Street to Home projects in SA, WA and the NT in order to provide a description of the overall ‘shape’ of the service models offered in these jurisdictions. The findings included the following:

• Street to Home initiatives are unique to their jurisdictions.

• All of the initiatives in SA, WA and NT had been designed to ensure that people sleeping rough were provided with services tailored to meet their individual needs.

• None of the Street to Home initiatives delivered in SA, WA and NT had the capacity to consistently deliver immediate access to permanent supportive housing. Thisdiffers markedly from the original Street to Home model in the United States which sought to deliver a Housing First type model of permanent accommodation to roughsleepers identified through outreach programs. For this reason, the Street to Home models in SA, WA and NT were more reflective of Assertive Outreach models (referpage 12) than Housing First models.

• The Street to Home models in SA, WA and the NT were made up of multiple agency activities. In all models, resources to address clients’ issues were needed fromboth government and non-government sectors and this highlighted the importance of advocacy as a critical component in the delivery of Street to Home services. Thisdiffers from the original model wherein all services are provided by one agency.

Strengths

• The support/ case staff are clear and committed to a specific target group and, in the Street to Home models where it is used, the VI-SPDAT assessment tool, provides arobust and consistent methodology to determine the most vulnerable rough sleepers and count rough sleepers.114

Weaknesses

• The Street to Home model varies from one jurisdiction to another and the review undertaken by Flinders University indicates that it would be better off being deliveredby a single agency. This would require dedicated resourcing by either Government or non-government providers.

• The evaluation by RMIT indicates that the Street to Home model may be less effective with teenagers.

• To deliver the Street to Home model as a replicate of the original model in New York, permanent housing options are required. This can be difficult to achieve withoutfirst investing in housing stock to ensure an adequate supply of infrastructure where wait lists for housing are prohibitive. Furthermore, as with other Housing Firstmodels, the accommodation needs to be consumer oriented and therefore culturally appropriate.

• Intensive support is only provided short term so tenants have a finite period of time in which to build their independence through support accommodation. 115 Fortenants with complex needs (e.g. compounding issues such as mental illness and drug addiction) the Street to Home model may not provide a long enough period ofsupport to achieve sustained change.

• The isolated housing arrangements of a scattered site model of housing may lead to loneliness for tenants. 116


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.7 Michael’s Intensive Supported Housing Accord (MISHA) - Scattered site housing with outreach support

What?

Michael’s Intensive Supported Housing Accord (MISHA) is managed by Mission Australia in Parramatta, NSW. MISHA is designed to identify homeless men (through outreach and local homelessness services) and move them into scattered site accommodation. The service delivery model employed in the MISHA project is based on two key foundational elements: the principles of Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) which emphasises a multi-disciplinary team approach to the holistic management of a client’s needs; and the Housing First model which emphasises permanent housing and consumer choice.

Why?

Mission Australia managed a similar project for four years (2007 to 2010) and an evaluation by the University of WA indicated that an integrated, targeted and timely model of service delivery offered from within the existing accommodation support system can have a beneficial impact for men experiencing homelessness and can lay a platform for recovery and social inclusion. For this reason, Mission Australia established a similar project in the Parramatta area, where there was an identified need.

Is it working?

An evaluation of MISHA in 2013 indicated that 90% of men registered with MISHA sustained their tenancies for 2 years. The proportion of tenants with employment also rose from 10% to 15% over two years and there were marked reductions in social isolation. However, there were mixed results for improvements in mental health and social participation. Over the two year evaluation period, there was little improvement in the mental health of tenants as the “levels of psychological distress were higher than general population estimates, but remained stable over time” and quality of life measures of self-assessed wellbeing did not rise.117

This contrasts with the findings from the evaluation of a similar Mission Australia project, undertaken between 2007 and 2010, which reported that there were improvements in the quality of life for tenants, and that tenants were half as likely to feel isolated. This project also produced better results than the MISHA project for employment with tenants three times more likely to be employed, and a 20% increase in employment.

While the literature did not indicate this, it is possible that the cohort of men in Parramatta had higher or more complex health or social needs and therefore had greater difficult in increasing social participation and employment.

The evaluation of the MISHA project also identified a number of challenges which reduced the effectiveness of the MISHA project. These included the following:

• relationships with service networks were not always established before service provision started;

• there was no systematic approach to the assessment of clients before housing placement and client intake was notstaggered to allow full assessment and case planning;

Examples

Michael’s Intensive Supported Housing Accord (MISHA) (NSW)

The model encompasses three core elements; outreach and supported accommodation services by Mission Australia; renewed investment in assertive case management; and direct provision of specialist allied health and support services; including Indigenous outreach and drug and alcohol counsellor. 118

A scattered housing approach was taken with 74 housing units, including a mix of larger and small cluster groups. After meeting specific criteria, 29% of homeless men were housed within one month, following 2 to 6 months. 119


Appendix 3 – Housing First ModelTable A3.8 Michael’s Intensive Supported Housing Accord - Scattered site housing with outreach support

• securing housing at a pace consistent with client intake was difficult and there was not always enough flexibility to allow matching of clients with housing suitable fortheir individual needs;

• effective tenancy protocols and channels of communication needed to be established with housing providers from the start of the program; and,

• there needed to be sufficient support for case workers to adapt to the principles of Housing First plus a ratio of caseworker to clients that reflects an appropriatecaseload consistent with the level of support needed.

While this seems like a long list of challenges, there were a number of positive critical elements that were also identified as part of the evaluation of MISHA. These included the following:

• good quality and permanent housing stock availability equipped to a modest but ‘normal’ standard;

• dedicated and skilled staff, providing assertive and wide-ranging case management support, including living skills and tenancy support;

• a focus on building client independence and self-reliance, including allowing clients to make mistakes but learn from them;

• a committed relationship with housing providers to manage tenancy problems regardless of the chronic nature or seriousness of the problems;

• brokered or supported access to a full range of health and ancillary services;

• in-house psychological support and counselling; and

• opportunities for clients to socialise and engage in educational, sporting and other activities to improve social well-being.

Strengths

• The MISHA project recognised that many male rough sleepers have a mental health illness and therefore included psychological support and counselling as part of themodel. 120

• Research indicates that people with psychiatric illness prefer their own housing over shared housing so the scattered housing model of MISHA may work better forhomeless men with mental illness.121

Weaknesses

• The scattered site approach to providing permanent accommodation can make it difficult to engage tenants when it is voluntary for tenants to participate in supportservices.122

• It can be difficult to secure properties in a scattered approach, as the model generally relies on head leasing of private rental properties. 123

Appendix 4: Strategy focus for rough sleepers in other jurisdictions


Appendix 4 - Strategy focus for rough sleepers in other jurisdictionsJurisdiction Homelessness Strategy Focus

Queensland The QLD Housing Strategy 2017-27 focus for homelessness is to ‘improve the pathways from homelessness to sage and secure housing.’. The attention in a more holistic and person-centred approach, and people will be linked to the support they need to improve their wellbeing and self-reliance, and access and sustain safe and secure tenancies. ‘We will establish a Housing and Homelessness Research Alliance to better support targeted research, analysis and evaluations.’

‘Our goal is to create a housing and homelessness system that responds quickly and flexibly to people’s unique housing needs.’

New South Wales

New homelessness strategy will incorporate a stronger focus to the prevention of homelessness, rather than only managing it. The strategy will create a framework for collective action across all levels of government, non-government sectors and the community to ensure:

• Fewer people experience homelessness

• People in NSW find adequate, secure, places to live, and individual needs are assessed, including social and cultural considerations

• People are empowered to tackle the underlying issues that put them at risk of homelessness‘Moving from a predominantly crisis-driven response to an integrated service system with services working together effectively to provide support’

‘Homelessness services for Aboriginal people must be culturally competent and, where possible, delivered by specialist Aboriginal services.’ (discussion paper)

Western Australia

The State Plan 2010-13 Opening Doors to Address Homelessness, core focus will provide foundations for the new Strategic Homelessness State Plan:

• Early intervention

• Better integrated service system

• Breaking the cycle‘The complexity of homelessness and impact on families needs to be considered in planning for future homelessness programs and integrated service design models.’

Appendix 2

Table A41: Homelessness Strategy Focus


Appendix 4 - Strategy focus for rough sleepers in other jurisdictionsJurisdiction Homelessness Strategy Focus

Victoria Homes for Victorians Strategy 2017 is centred around

• Moving homeless into stable housing; including Wyndham project• A Toward Home package for rough sleepers• Roaming houses?• Family violence measures• Improving housing services‘intervene earlier to prevent homelessness, improve responses to those entering crisis accommodation, and increase the wrap-around services and support people in need.’

South Australia The Housing Strategy 2013-18 focus is:

• prevention and reduction of homelessness and expand specialist housing such as the Ladder Project, Common Ground and foyer-type models,including in regional areas.

• To work with local communities to ensure appropriate responses to homelessness in regional centres.‘The vision is focused on ‘connecting people to place’, by taking a more regional, community and place-based approach to services that will increasingly look to partner with other providers to deliver quality housing choices for disadvantaged people in the community.’

Australian Capital Territory

Informed by the Affordable Housing Advisory, a key focus of the new Housing Strategy is to reduce homelessness. Attention will be given to assist ‘those who need it most’, including those experiencing homelessness, and:

• Dedicated homelessness support services to provide homelessness programs• A range of new actions such as expanding the Common Ground model to include into a second site• Early planning and long-term accommodation types to accommodation homeless with complex needs• Develop a system-wide response to contribute to improved long-term outcomes for clients through a lens of trauma‘Addressing homelessness, however, will not be achieved by the Government working alone; it is a joint responsibility.’

‘Key groups that may need more support, such as older women, young people leaving care, people sleeping rough, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities andwomen and children escaping domestic and family violence.’

Tasmania Tasmania’s Affordable Housing Strategy 2015-25 to reduce homelessness will focus on:

• Prevention• Target intervention• Rapid response and recovery‘A more appropriate response is to rapidly assist homeless young people into secure supported accommodation with adequate support services toassist the young people to achieve family reunification or more stable accommodation options.’

Appendix 2

Table A4.1: Homelessness Strategy Focus

Appendix 5: International case studies for responses to rough sleeping and homelessness


Appendix 5 – International case studies – Canada Table A5.1 Canada - homelessness

The problem

In Canada, 35,000 people are homeless on any given night and at least 235,000 people experience homelessness each year.124 Similar to Australia, Canada’s Indigenous Peoples are overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness with 28-34% of shelters constituting Indigenous people while Indigenous people comprise only 4.3% of Canada’s total population.125 Significant levels of homelessness in Canada emerged in the 1980s, following disinvestment in affordable housing, structural shifts in the economy and reduced spending on social supports.126 To address the problem of homelessness in Canada, the Canadian Observatory of Homelessness recommended a tailored response to three key populations: youth; veterans; and Indigenous people.

“… we have the opportunity to build supports, policy and infrastructure that are culturally appropriate, community-led, and attentive to the unique dimensions of Indigenous homelessness.”127

Staged solutions

An initial focus on emergency accommodation – In the mid-2000s, the response to homelessness in Canada focused on building expensive infrastructure around emergency services and supports, including shelters, day programs, and drop-ins. These emergency responses were often coupled with law enforcement efforts that functioned to criminalize homelessness.128 Since 2008, there has been an increased focus on plans to end homelessness with system integration, setting measurable targets and the adoption of Housing First as a critical intervention strategy.

Homelessness Partnering Strategy – In 2013, the Canadian Government committed to the Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS), positioning Housing First and chronic homelessness as key priorities. Housing First was prioritized as a primary response to homelessness because this program had proven effective in a range of locations (including examples shown at right). The HPS is a community-based program aimed at preventing and reducing homelessness by providing direct support to 61 designated communities and to organisations that address Indigenous homelessness.129

Community Advisory Boards are expected to develop a Housing first approach to fit their local situation and submit this to Government for funding approval. Government funding involves three kinds of supports for Housing First approaches:

• housing with supports to help clients find housing, move in and maintain that housing;

• recovery oriented clinical supports providing or facilitating access to health and social care to clients to help themachieve housing stability and encourage well-being; and

• complementary supports, such as assistance with finding employment, volunteer work and accessing training offeredon a case-by-case basis to help clients improve their quality of life and improve self-sufficiency.130

As part of the HPS, the National Homeless Information System (NHIS) is designed to facilitate the collection of data from homeless service providers to facilitate a national portrait of homelessness.131 The NHIS Initiative aims to prevent and reduce homelessness by increasing knowledge and understanding of homelessness issues across Canada.132

Examples

Toronto, Ontario – Streets to Homes

Established in 2005, the program attempts to help clients to quickly secure housing as quickly as possible and then provide a range of supports to enable them to sustain tenancy.

Lethbridge, Alberta – The City and Community to "Bring Lethbridge Home"

This program prioritises the chronically homeless using a decision assistance tool. The aim is to assist people into permanent housing using a centralized triage that enables comprehensive assessment of clients’ needs in order to link them with the most appropriate services.

Hamilton, Ontario – Transitions to Home (T2H)

This program supports adult males experiencing long-term shelter use and homelessness in acquiring and maintaining safe and affordable, long-term housing in the community.


Appendix 5 – International case studies – Canada Table A5.1 Canada – homelessness

Given that the HPS is a community based solution, each community has a unique approach to delivering responses to homelessness and this is shown in their investment strategies. The figures below show that large cities tend to place a greater priority on investing in Housing First (~51% of funding) whereas small designated communities place more emphasis on services to support the chronically homeless (~49% of funding) and less on Housing First (~21%).133 Small designated communities with an Aboriginal homeless plan also invest more funding in facilities (~33% of funding) and less in Housing First than other communities (~40% of funding).134

Many small designated communities are using funding to build capital to meet the needs of target cohorts including Indigenous people and youth, rather than investing in Housing First. This indicates that whilst Housing First can be effective in a range of locations, it is not always the best option for addressing the immediate needs of particular groups, including Indigenous people, as defined by the local community. In this regard, the Canadian HPS enables a flexible and community-based response to homelessness.

Figure A5.2: Investment priorities for small designated communities 2014-15Figure A5.1: Investment priorities for large cities 2014-15

Source: Government of Canada, Community Plan 2014-2019: Large Cities, 2015 Source: Government of Canada, Community Plan 2014-2019: Small designated communities, 2015


Table A5.2 Canada – Indigenous homelessness

The problem

As indicated above, Canada’s Indigenous population is over-represented among homeless people. This literature review indicated that the trend in Canadian social policy had been to understand Indigenous homelessness in terms of poverty, housing needs, and social exclusion.135 However, in recent years several researcher-academics have argued that effective responses to Indigenous homelessness need to address two key factors:

1. intergenerational trauma resulting from colonialism and present-day colonial continuities which contributes to thehigh rates of mental health complications, substance abuse, violence, and other risk factors for homelessness.

2. structural inequality which is represented in the high rates of core housing need and poverty in Indigenoushouseholds both on- and off-reserve, in high rates of Indigenous children living in poverty and/or in the child welfaresystem, and in the high rates of Indigenous men and women incarcerated in the criminal justice system.136

Furthermore, many researchers consider that Canada’s Indigenous population struggles with the expectations of housing policy and other Government funded accommodation because it does not align with the cultural and communal aspects of ‘home’. This is similar to the definition of homelessness for Australia’s Indigenous people (refer to page 15) wherein Aboriginal people suffer a kind of “spiritual homelessness” when they disconnected from traditional homelands and community.137 In Canada, camping out, going out onto the land, or spending time with Elders are some of the home/journeying strategies used by homeless men and women in an effort not only to resist dependency, but also as expressions of self-determination and home-building.138

Research in Canada also shows that the main homeless pathways for Indigenous people were heavily influenced by housing shortages (both on reserves and in cities), reserve dynamics, the impact of the child welfare, domestic violence, and racism and exclusion.139

Examples

Poundmaker’s Lodge near Edmonton, Alberta140

The Poundmaker Lodge includes substance abuse programs geared specifically towards Indigenous peoples. Whilst the program focuses on Aboriginal culture and spirituality, its principles are universal and clients from all cultures, traditions and faiths are welcome.

Homeward Trust Edmonton141

This involves a community-based approach that embraces recovery-oriented or other supportive and/or transitional housing models and includes Indigenous wellness approaches. It maintains a majority Indigenous board membership and an Aboriginal Advisory Council in its effort to address Indigenous homelessness in the city.

Lu'Ma Native Housing Society, Vancouver142

The Lu’Ma Native Housing Society (Lu’Ma) is an Indigenous corporation. The primary focus of the Lu’Ma is to build, own and operate affordable housing. Lu’Ma also provides a broad range of services aimed at improving the social determinants of health and assisting Aboriginal people at risk of homelessness.

Appendix 5 – International case studies – Canada


Table A5.3 Canada - homelessness

Managed Alcohol Programs (MAP)

In 1997, Toronto opened the first MAP in Canada in response to the deaths of a number of rough sleeper and because it was acknowledged that a large portion of Canada’s homeless population have severe alcohol dependency. Research published in 2016, indicates that there are 14 MAPs operating across Canada.143

Evaluations have revealed that MAPs have achieved positive results for both individual clients and the community. However, there has been a great deal of debate in Canada about whether MAPs represent appropriate investment and an appropriate response for addressing the needs of homeless people.

Approach

The MAPs approach provides rough sleepers with secure permanent housing and support service that allows them to continue consuming alcohol in line with alcohol management plans. Generally, the eligibility for entry into a MAP is limited to people who are chronically homeless and have severe alcohol problems. This is usually evidenced through re-occurring intervention by police. MAPs have enforced alcohol curfews which means that tenants can consume alcohol within specific times. MAPs usually provide drinks to clients that are 12% alcohol. Drinking outside of the program is discouraged and tenants must follow certain rules to be allowed to drink alcohol such as not being intoxicated prior to a drinking session.144

Other services provided as part of MAPs includes life skills and money management education, legal services and health care. The facilities also offers interactive activities and common areas for socialising, entertainment and cooking.

Evaluations

• A study compared MAP tenants who had been sleeping rough against rough sleepers who were staying inemergency shelters. The qualitative results reported that MAP tenants had a higher level of satisfaction, sustaininghousing was achievable and the program provided a safe environment and sense of family.

• The quantitative findings revealed MAP tenants had 41% fewer police contacts, 87% fewer detox admission and32% fewer hospital admissions compared to those in emergency shelters. In addition, MAP tenants were less likelyto consume non-beverage alcohol (such as mouth wash) and there was decrease in alcohol related harms. 145

• Observation noted that MAPs allows support staff, particularly physicians the opportunity to review other healthissues of the individual once alcoholism is under control. 146

• Research indicates that MAPs provide chronic rough sleepers with a sense of safety, respect, home and family,which can promotes reconnection with cultural traditions for Indigenous. It is evident MAPs plays a role in alcoholreduction for homeless people, however, some research argues that this program may be perceived as conflictingwith Indigenous cultural practices. 147

Examples

Kware Kil Win Centre, Ontario

Opened in 2012, the 15 bed Centre was a response to community concerns of rough sleepers public intoxication and over reliance on police intervention.

Shepherd of Good Hope, Ottawa

Tenants are able to receive a drink every hour between 7.30pm and 9.30pm.

A review of the MAP in Ottawa revealed improved health outcomes, less emergency visits, fewer police interventions and reduced alcohol consumption over a 16 month period.148

The MAP is supported by the City of Ottawa for the reason that benefits of the program are evident in savings in emergency services.

Street Entrenched MAP, Vancover

The Street Entrenched program is unique in that it does not provide long term accommodation, but rather a day program to support chronic rough sleeper alcoholics. They are provided with a place to drink safely and access to support services.149

Ambrose Place, Edmonton

Focused on providing a culturally sensitive environment to homeless Indigenous, particularly to support alcohol addictions. The facility is supportive housing, accommodation 32 and provides 4 hours of daily alcohol consumption. 150

Appendix 5 – International case studies – Canada


Appendix 5 – International case studies – Canada Table A5.5 Streets to homes, Toronto151

The aim of Streets to Homes is to link individuals on the street with permanent housing. This differs from the model of ‘Street to Home’ in the NT which aims to link individuals with short term crisis accommodation for case management. Streets to Home attempts to help clients secure housing as quickly as possible and then provide a range of supports to enable sustained permanent accommodation. Supports include: rent checks; life skills development; employment and training.

Outreach workers engage with people sleeping rough and offer a range of housing options as part of a case management approach. More recently, a specialised Multi-disciplinary Outreach Team (MDOT) has been established to work with people experiencing more significant mental health disorders. The MDOT, consists of a senior outreach worker, a registered nurse, a housing support worker, psychiatrists and a concurrent disorders therapist.

Key components of the Streets to home program in Toronto include:

• specialised services for youth, Aboriginal people, people leaving incarceration;

• outreach services support clients to: obtain ID; access income supports;accompaniment and referrals to services; finding an apartment; and

• negotiating the lease with the landlord; furniture; moving.

Is it working?

Since 2005, outreach workers have helped more than 4 000 people move into housing directly from the street; 80 percent remain housed after 12 months.

Strengths

Rough sleepers are offered permanent accommodation and a series of supports to make this a sustained transition.

Weakness

This response is reliant on the ready availability of housing stock and assumes that participants have an incomee. This model has also previously relied on shared accommodation because of the housing shortage in Toronto. A previous evaluation also found that Indigenous people did not improve as much as non-Indigenous people e.g. 75% of non-Indigenous people reported improved sleeping compared to only 52% of Indigenous people

Table A5.6 Lethbridge, Alberta – The City and Community to "Bring Lethbridge Home”152

Housing First in Lethbridge is managed through a partnership of Social Housing in Action (SHIA) and the City of Lethbridge. The SHIA which serves as the community advisory board, is made up of over 100 members of the community, social service and housing agencies, public sector, government and the Indigenous community.

General characteristics of the program include:

• a centralised intake, assessment and triage to determine eligibility and referralof clients to the appropriate Housing First team or community service. Thisincludes the use of a Service Prioritisation Decision Assistance Tool todetermine the needs of the service participant.

• a case management team including an Outreach Worker and a Follow-UpSupport Worker (FSW) who assist participants with accessing housing,income stability and accessing support services.

• a weekly complex case consultation which brings together multiplecommunity partners and professionals to prioritise, consult and reviewindividual cases. This includes a range of people from legal, police, health andHousing First teams.

Housing First teams and participants are further supported through a Housing First furniture bank and a clinical team with professionals in the fields of psychiatric nursing, addiction, police liaison and social work.

Is it working?

At the end of 2015-16, approximately 734 clients had been permanently housed, and more than 80 percent remain housed through Housing First.

Strengths

This model includes decision support tool to achieve consistency and integrity in the pathways for homeless people. The weekly case consultation across multiple support disciplines is considered to be critical to the success of the program.173

Weakness

This response is reliant on the availability of housing stock and coordinated input across a range of community stakeholders.


Appendix 5 – International case studies – Canada Table A5.7 Poundmaker ‘s Lodge near Edmonton, Alberta153

Poundmaker’s Lodge is known as Canada’s first addictions treatment centrespecifically for Indigenous clients.

The residential addiction program has five key components:

• Mental - Clients learn about the root causes of their addiction and thebehavior that leads them down the path to addictive behavior. There is anemphasis on skills in communication, problem solving and healthyassertiveness.

• Emotional - The majority of clients have experienced some form of trauma intheir lives resulting in anger, shame, and low self-esteem from which they tryto numb the pain of past life experiences and self-medicate throughsubstances. Clients learn skills to begin a process of healing and recoveryfrom addictions.

• Physical - Clients participate in recreational and social activities includingswimming, bowling and sober dances..

• Spiritual - Clients reconnect with their culture, spirituality and themselvesthrough sweat lodge ceremonies, pipe ceremonies, and sweet grassceremonies with the guidance of an on-site cultural advisor. All activities areconducted with an attitude of deep respect for Aboriginal traditions andvalues.

Is it working?

There have been no independent evaluations of the facility but it is well known and well renowned and referred to in the literature as a successful model for addressing homelessness among Indigenous populations.

Strengths

The emphasis on wellbeing and spiritual healing as part of an Indigenous focused strategy for addressing problems with addiction.

Weakness

No recent evaluations to ascertain the critical success factors.

Table A5.8 Homeward Trust, Edmonton, Alberta154

Homeward Trust is a community-based organisation that coordinates responses to housing needs by working with local agencies and all levels of government. It administratively oversees the Housing First Support Program that is delivered by various agencies in Edmonton. The Housing First Support Program includes case management and clinical services, delivered using the Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) team model and Intensive Case Management (ICM).

The ACT teams serve individual clients who require the most intensive services to stay housed. The ACT teams consist of a lead clinical expert; a occupational therapist; access to physicians; access to psychiatrist; and nurses on staff.

ICM serves clients who require less intensive services to stay housed. The structure of the ICM is made up of the following workers who have a case load of 15 to 17 persons each:

team lead to coordinate services;

housing worker to provide home search and move-in services; and

follow-up support workers who help the client maintain housing and aims to transition the client to self-sufficiency within 12 months.

ICM teams broker access to clinicians via the community-based Clinical Access Team (CAT). The CAT does not have a caseload; its sole task is to serve the ICM team and provide access to clinicians and makes assessments about the graduation of clients.

Is it working?

As at June 2017, more than 6300 people housed since 2009. Of the 300 people housed between April and June 2017, approximately 60% were Indigenous and more than 67% were chronically homeless.

Strengths

The Homeward Trust acknowledges that Indigenous people make up a significant portion of Alberta’s homeless people and as such focuses on delivering staff training around intergenerational traumas and colonialism, in alignment with Indigenous teachings, and partnerships with Indigenous communities. The Homeward Trust is also committed to ongoing evaluation of services in order to ensure that it is meeting the needs of Indigenous people.


Table A5.4 New Zealand - homelessness

The problem

In recent years, the number of homeless people in New Zealand (NZ) has increased from 28,649 in 2001 to 41,207 in 2016.155 This means that one in every 100 New Zealanders are considered homeless with around 4,200 people living without shelter, 1,400 living on the street and 2,800 living in cars. 156

NZ’s homelessness problem is primarily due to housing shortages. Historically NZ’s housing policy was directed at housing ownership rather than providing public housing to support those who are vulnerable. 157 In 2000, the NZ Government shifted policy and budget commitments toward low income housing, but homelessness has continued to be a core problem due to lack of adequate housing and high cost rentals. 158 Additionally, growing rates of unemployed young adults and closure of boarding houses, has resulted in an increase in the demand for crisis accommodation.159

Similar to Australia, NZ’s Indigenous people (Maoris and Pasifka) are overrepresented among rough sleepers with Indigenous people making up over half of the homeless population in NZ.160 Rough sleepers in NZ commonly experience poor physical and mental health. Research indicates that many Indigenous people who receive assistance, and secure housing, often re-enter the cycle of homelessness cycle because homelessness services do not include culturally sensitive responses. 161 There are various factors contributing to rough sleeping in NZ., with primary reasons being family violence and breakdown, job loss, eviction from housing, leaving prison, history of mental health and alcoholism/drug addition. 162

Current State

With the absence of a national response to rough sleepers, public commentary indicates that NZ’s typical response to homelessness is through assertive outreach response, like crisis accommodation because permanent housing stock is limited. Housing NZ supplies social housing to applicants who are most in need (based on income eligibility criteria) however the need for social housing is increasing.

A unique element to NZ’s housing approach is the concept of Papakainga Housing. This is not specifically targeted at rough sleepers but it is an Indigenous specific model, designed to support a communal village (for example it may include 10 family units) on ancestral land. The concept provides permanent and accessible housing to Maoris where home ownership is possible on cultural land.

Staged Solutions

The 2016 Cross-Party Inquiry into Homelessness report indicated that the NZ’s Government’s approach to tackling homelessness was insufficient. The Cross-Party Inquiry reported that the following core components were critical to improving the effectiveness of NZ's response to homelessness National homelessness strategy: system wide support services; accountability to monitor and measure specific targets; and the housing first model. 163

Examples

Te Mahana Strategy, Wellington

The City of Wellington developed a strategy for 2014-2020 to end homelessness in their city. The strategy focused particularly onMaori rough sleepers through a coordinated approach of wrap around services and support to help them secure tenancy.164

He Korowai Trust the Far North

In 2016, He Korowai Trustl purchased an abandoned historical hotel to upgrade it into crisis accommodation. This response was implemented in order to meet the recogniseddemand for crisis accommodation. The upgrades cost over $200,000 and includes 35 self contained rooms. 165

Papakainga Housing, Wellington Housing model is not a response to homelessness, however it is targeted at the Maori population and is designed as a ‘nurturing place to return’, where home ownership is based on spiritual, culture and social values associated with land. 166

Appendix 5 – International case studies – New Zealand


Table A5.9 New Zealand - homelessness

Recent Initiatives

Housing First

In 2017, the NZ Government initiated the Housing First model through a 2 year pilot program in Auckland. Private landlords have partnered with the Government for this initiative to provide 81% of housing. The program is focused on providing 572 chronically homeless people with housing and ongoing wrap-around support. Despite the fact that this pilot is in early stages, the first six months have reported the following successes:167

• Housing 380 in total

• 56% of the chronically homeless were single men sleeping rough

• Maoris represented 62% of those housed

In addition to the official launch of a Government supported Housing First model in Auckland, there was a previous Housing First type model in Hamilton which successfully enabled rough sleepers to sustain longer term housing.168

Budget Investment

The NZ Government’s 2017 budget for the next four years is focused on establishing infrastructure which can support the Housing First model and provide housing stock options for permanent accommodation as well as transitional housing and services to support people who may be at risk of becoming homeless (e.g. recently released prisoners). The budget investment includes the following:169

• $155.2 million of operating funding and $20 million of capital for more emergency and transitional housing

• $16.5 million to expand Housing First into areas of high need across the country; and

• $13.1 million for a new Positive Housing Pathways program for offenders leaving prison.

Accommodation

Public commentary in NZ indicates t the recent efforts to increase crisis and transitional housing including a pop-up emergency housing village erected within 2 months in Papamoa and new transitional housing constructed across the country.170

Further, Auckland is currently building a 80 unit supported housing complex completed in 2020, which is considered the largest social housing project in NZ.171

NZ’s first Te Whare Okioki (wet accommodation) will open in Wellington late 2017, in line with the Housing First model. The facility is targeted at homeless with alcohol and drug addictions, allowing them to consume these substances while undergoing rehabilitation programs. The shelter will accommodate 14 people and will be located in central Wellington.172

Examples

Housing First 2 year pilot , Auckland

Dr Sam Tsemberis, the founder of the Housing First model in New York has worked along side the Auckland Council to pilot Housing First as a response to rough sleeper.

People’s Project, Hamilton

The People’s Project is a collaboration across multiple agencies to introduce the Housing First model. Since 2014, the People’s Project has been successful in housing 78 rough sleepers. Reporting that of those housed 94% have sustained tenancy.173

Transitional Housing, NZ

A new approach to transitional housing in NZ, includes a 12 week or more housing option which is funded by the government and managed by contracted providers.174

Public amenities, Auckland

Potential projects in the pipeline to support rough sleepers in Auckland includes building public amenities as part of CBD and Waterfront developments and installing storage lockers within the city.175

Appendix 5 – International case studies – New Zealand


Appendix 5 – International case studies – US, UK, EuropeTable A5.10 US

Current State

In 2016, 564,708 people were experiencing homelessness across the US, this was an overall decrease of 2% from 2015.176 This decrease is considered a result of homelessness starting to benefit from economic recovery. Although factors leading to homelessness are presumably a result of unemployment and affordability of housing.

The introduction of the government’s Housing First policies reflects a shift away from transitional housing to permanent housing as a response to homelessness. For instance, there was an increase of 300,282 Housing First tenants from 2013 to 2015 and a continuing decrease in transitional housing capacity.

Housing First Model

In 1992, Dr Sam Tsemberis founded the Housing First model in New York in response to large numbers of chronically homeless people. As discussed earlier, the Housing First model principally supports those with serious mental health issues, providing immediate access to permanent housing with ongoing and voluntary support services. Housing First in the US encourages self determination by allowing tenants to make their own choices, for example tenants are able to continue habits of substance use.

An evaluation of this model in the US indicated that most tenants sustained permanent accommodation. Other studies document improvements in substance abuse and mental health of Housing First tenants. Although there is a body of literature which indicates the success of the Housing First model in the US, there are limited assessments of the experience and perspectives of neighbours, and the impact of Housing First dwellings on the surrounding residential areas.177 This kind of analysis would be helpful for articulating the longer term impacts and negative externalities of establishing Housing First models in a community.

Sober Living Housing Model (SLH)

Originating in the 1940s in California, Sober Living Housing (SLH) is targeted at rough sleepers who want to abstain from alcohol and drugs. The model offers social housing with a program to support substance abuse recovery. The approach of substance abuse recovery is focused around peer support and empowerment. Housing at SLH is funded through tenancy fees and the length of stay is indefinite so long as tenants abstain from alcohol and drugs.

Table A5.11 UK/Europe

Current State

In the UK and Europe, homelessness has grown except for Finland where statistics indicate a decrease in homelessness. A recent European report indicated homelessness in London, Paris, Brussels, Dublin, Vienna, Athens, Warsaw and Barcelona are key areas of concern due to decreasing housing availability and affordability.185

For instance, statistics published in 2016 indicated that 4,134 people on a given night in England were sleeping rough, which is a 16% increase from 2015 186

noting that rough sleepers counted in London constituted 37% Eastern Europeans.187 The literature indicates that the Government budget cuts in housing benefits and limited investment in affordable housing are considered to be the key reason for recent increases in the incidence of homelessness in the UK.

Housing First, Finland

Throughout Europe, Finland is the only country to report a decrease in the number of long term homeless people, with 10% decrease in single rough sleepers reported for the period 2013-2016.188 These results have been driven by the Finnish Government’s national strategy for homelessness which was developed in 2008 and was based upon the Housing First model. Finland’s approach involved converting homeless shelters into supportive housing and investing in affordable housing.

Important success factors included coordinating government and non-government services to match the individual needs of Housing First tenants with appropriate services. The challenges faced and overcome were working with NGOs to shift their attitudes where the concept was difficult to grasp and secondly, gaining community support through open interaction, particularly with neighbours near supported housing. 189

Streetlink, UK

In 2012, Streetlink was launched as mobile technology in England and introduced into Wales in 2016. The app and/or website allows members of the public to alert the location of rough sleepers. The alerts are received by a local authority homelessness team which enables them to find the rough sleeper and link them with needed services. This technology has effectively engaged community support in England with 35,500 Streetlink alerts sent, connecting 15,500 rough sleepers to support and 3,000 into crisis accommodation.190



An evaluation of this model indicated 245 individuals and another 55 rough sleepers over an 18 month period reported positive improvements for alcohol and drug problems, employment, psychiatric symptoms and arrests. 178 The community and neighbours were supportive of the model and supported the abstinence.

The limitations of the model included: commitment to abstinence by tenants was difficult; and some were unwilling to pursue their tenancy. Additionally, the model was not very supportive of those suffering serious mental health issues due to the level of independence and interpersonal attributes required.

The evaluation specifically noted there is a need for housing services which can accommodate substance use and assist cases with mental health problems.179

1811 Eastlake Project (wet shelter), Seattle

This facility provides long term housing and services to chronic rough sleepers with long term alcohol problems. The tenants are allowed to possess and consume alcohol in their rooms and do not have curfews or must follow alcohol programs. The eligibility for this facility includes demonstrated lack of success in securing accommodation due to substance abuse.

A review of this facility found that during the first two years of tenancy, heavy alcoholics reduced their drinking by 35% and the median number of daily drinks reduced from 20 to 12. After the first year, 80% sustained their tenancy and after two years 61% remained. It was also reported that in two years, half of the tenants reduced delirium tremens (mental or nervous system changes due to severe alcohol withdrawal) from 65% to 23%.180 Support for the facility grew when evidence put forward in the Journal of the American Medical Association that the housing project saved Seattle tax payers over $4 million in costs from publicly funded services.181


Sundial House Depaul, (MAP), Ireland

Opened in 2008 and still operating today, Sundial House provides long term housing with onsite support to target chronic rough sleepers with severe alcohol addictions, mental and physical health issues. The accommodation allows tenants to consume alcohol for three hours per day, as part of the alcohol management plans. The facility has both wet and dry areas to accommodate tenants.191

The staff negotiate intake with service users, store, dispense and assist with buying alcohol. A key focus of this model is on creating a community culture to support a stable, safe and healthy lifestyle.

An 18 month review was conducted in 2010 to examine the success of this model. Results indicated tenants were able to stabilize and manage their drinking, improve their health and establish relationships. Out of 30 tenants who moved in during 2008, 17 sustained tenancy. Other tenants departed due to need of hospital care, death or were dismissed due to being violent in the house.192

Additionally, there were reports of a positive impact upon anti-social drinking on the streets in Dublin.

It was noted a critical element to the success of this model is appropriate training of staff and working with residents to ensure basic house rules are followed. Along with alcohol programs, staff run a number of activities to distract attention from alcohol.

Gypsies and Travellers

Gypsy and Travelers are recognized as a cohort of homeless people in the UK, Ireland and Europe noting the origin and definition varies among these countries. The cohort of these homeless people is generally focused on accommodation needs rather than housing needs, since the nature of living is attributed to their cultural origin of consistently travelling. However, a lack of available housing and negative public perception of these people means that they experience difficulty in securing housing. This cohort has particular difficulty accessing homelessness services and generally have significant health, mental and social issues. Additionally, many do not consider themselves homeless but rather nomadic and they prefer to avoid intervention for fear of the removal of their children.193



Supportive Housing Locations

In the US, federal laws obligate government to make underused or abandoned federal buildings available for sheltering homeless. Given this legislation, supportive housing for homeless are disbursed within private residential or prime city locations. There are laws to protect these housing arrangements including discriminatory zoning by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act.

One study which considered ways in which housing models in the US could be sustained, suggested that changes to zoning regulations could protect housing arrangements for people at risk of homelessness. For instance, if Housing First neighbours observe inappropriate behaviour by tenants it may bring about negative public attention, this could persuade changes to zoning regulations. The study suggests action is needed by government and other related services to further engage and advocate supportive housing to the public, ensuring continuation of supportive housing models as a means to address homelessness.182

BLOCK Project Model

The BLOCK project was developed in Seattle as part of a community initiative to respond to rough sleepers. There are limited evaluations of this model.

The design of a BLOCK house is a shipping container, built with all necessary amenities for self sufficient living including solar power panel roof and an independent water system.183 The approach of the design is reported to be environmentally and financially sustainable.

Residential home owners volunteer and consent to have a BLOCK house moved into their backyards. Length of stay is negotiated between the home owner and BLOCK resident, generally viewed as long as the BLOCK residents requires before more permanent housing becomes available. This model reportedly encourages the establishment of relationships between the home owners and the BLOCK resident. Additionally, BLOCK residents can access wrap around services.

The building of the BLOCK houses are funded through donations. BLOCK residents pay rent which is equivalent to 30% of their income. The rent is divided to pay the host resident and maintain the BLOCK house.184


Authorised Sites

In response the cohort of homeless people are recognized as Gypsies and Travellers who live in traveller caravans on unauthorized sites, Governments in the UK and Ireland have funded local authorities to allocate and manage authorized traveller sites.

The Gypsy or Traveller residents rent a site for their caravans. The aim of the site is to enable provision of suitable accommodation; support housing rights; and provide access to needed services.194

Research indicates that there are not enough authorised sites to meet the level of demand, including stop over sites to accommodate people in transit. Additionally, the model of offering authorized sites is reported to lack culturally appropriate accommodation and few assessments that actually identify traveller needs.195

Appendix 6: Survey results


Appendix 6 – Survey results

Figure A6.1: Age and gender of survey respondents




Figure A6.2: Age and gender of survey respondents in Darwin




Figure A6.3: Age and gender of survey respondents in Palmerston




Figure A6.4: Age and gender of survey respondents in Katherine



Figure A6.5: Length of time sleeping rough or being homeless in Darwin


Appendix 6 – Survey resultsIn Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine more than half the people surveyed identified as having been homeless or sleeping rough for more than 12 months. Figure A3.9 (below) and Figures A3.10 and A3.11 (overleaf) present the results for Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine respectively.


Figure A6.6: Length of time sleeping rough or being homeless in Palmerston




Figure A6.7: Length of time sleeping rough or being homeless in Katherine




Concerns when sleeping rough – Darwin Number of survey respondents

Safety 139

Health 79

Quality of sleep 73

Comfort 47

Loneliness 13

Humbug 7

Weather 3

Table A6.1: Concerns identified by survey respondents sleeping rough in Darwin


Concerns when sleeping rough –Palmerston


Safety 26

Quality of sleep 21

Comfort 21

Health 12

Humbug 4

Weather 2

Loneliness 1

Table A6.2: Concerns identified by survey respondents sleeping rough in Palmerston


Concerns when sleeping rough –Katherine


Safety 59

Comfort 46

Health 18

Quality of sleep 12

Loneliness 2

Table A6.3: Concerns identified by survey respondents sleeping rough in Katherine


Appendix 6 – Survey resultsSurvey respondents identified a number of concerns while sleeping rough. This page provides a breakdown of the most commonly identified concerns in each location.


The following tables outline the free meal service providers identified by survey respondents in Darwin, Palmerston and Katherine.


Free meal service providers


Family and friends 27

St Vincent de Paul 6

Mission Australia 2

Royal Darwin Hospital 2

Catholic Care 1

Salvation Army 1

Table A6.5: Free meal service providers commonly identified by survey respondents in Palmerston


Table A6.4: Free meal service providers commonly identified by survey respondents in Darwin



Salvation Army 175

St Vincent de Paul 166

Danila Dilba 38

Mission Australia 18

Larrakia Nation 5




Salvation Army 62

Red Shield Katherine Hub 53

Strongbala 34

Catholic Care 8

Wurli Wurlinjang 8

Table A6.6: Free meal service providers commonly identified by survey respondents in Katherine



The following tables outlined the key health service providers identified by survey respondents.


Table A6.7: Health service providers commonly identified by survey respondents in Darwin

Health service providers Number of survey respondents

Danila Dilba 206


Salvation Army 37

Wurli Wurlinjang 8

Sunrise Centre 2


Health service providers Number of survey respondents

Danila Dilba 61


Palmerston GP Super Clinic 22

Wurli Wurlinjang 1

Table A6.8: Health service providers commonly identified by survey respondents in Palmerston


Health service providers


Wurli Wurlinjang 79

Strongbala 57

Katherine Hospital 18

Salvation Army 3

Sunrise Centre 2

Table A6.9: Health service providers commonly identified by survey respondents in Katherine


Appendix 7: List of organisations involved in focus groups


Appendix 7: List of organisations involved in focus groupsOrganisations represented at the Darwin focus group

• Danila Dilba Health Service

• National Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation

• Darwin City Council

• St Vincent de Paul

• Anglicare

• Mission Austrlaia

• Salvation Army

• Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory

• NT Shelter

Organisations represented on the Project Advisory Group

• Danila Dilba Health Service

• National Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation

• Darwin City Council

• Aboriginal Peak Organisations Northern Territory

• Police, Fire and Emergency Services

• Department of Chief Minister

• Larrakia Nation Aboriginal Corporation

• NT Shelter

Organisations participating in the Katherine focus group

• Kalano Community Association

• Salvation Army

• Catholic Care

• Katherine Regional Aboriginal Health and Related Services

Organisations represented on the Project Advisory Group

• Wurli-Wurlinjang Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Service

• Police, Fire and Emergency Services

• Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet

• Kalano Community Association

• Salvation Army

Appendix 8: Accommodation model – Apmere Mwerre


Appendix 8: Accommodation model – Apmere MwerreAs part of this engagement and the assessment of responses to homelessness, KPMG assessed the cost-effectiveness of the Apmere Mwerre Visitor Park (Visitor Park) in Alice Springs and considered the feasibility of establishing a similar accommodation model in Darwin, Palmerston or Katherine as a means of addressing the needs of rough sleepers and homeless people.

As described in the Introduction section of this report, the approach to this part of the engagement involved consulting with AHL and undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the check-in and cost data provided by AHL for the Visitor Park. There were, however, a number of limitations to this data (refer to Introduction).

The Visitor Park provides short-stay hostel and camping accommodation for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and is located approximately 6 km south of the Alice Springs central business district in the suburb of Ilparpa. The site is readily accessible by car and serviced by public transport.

Service model and accommodation types

The Visitor Park does not take bookings in advance but it does enable people to call ahead and ask about the availability and price of accommodation. The Visitor Park charges a tariff which can be made in the form of cash, EFTPOS, purchase orders (for external referrals and government agency payments) and / or Centrepay. If Centrepay is the form of payment used to deduct payments directly from a client’s Centrelink account.

The Visitor Park provides four types of accommodation: camp sites; tents; rooms and cabins. The camp sites and tents are available for $15-$18 per night while the rooms and cabins cost as much as $40 per person per night with children under 5 accommodated for free. These prices apply for clients who are paying for their own accommodation. If an external service provider such as a domestic violence service or Patient Assisted Travel Service (PATS) is paying for the accommodation of a resident then the nightly fee for a room is higher, at $60 per person per night.

Camp sites

The Visitor Park provides some camp sites and clients who camp are able to use the fenced in fire pits available to cook their food or to access the free meal service which offers three meals per day.

Figure A8.1 Fire pits – one of several at the Visitor Park

Source: KPMG (2018)

Tents

The Visitor Park provides robust canvas tents with a hard wood floor and camping stretchers for clients who want to stay in the tents. The tents are usually only rented out when the rooms are close to full although if clients specifically request a tent they can have one. The tents are arranged so that they open out on to common grass areas or play equipment or picnic tables. Figure 14 overleaf provides an example of one of the Visitor Park tents


Appendix 8: Accommodation model – Apmere MwerreFigure A7.2: Visitor Park tents

Source: KPMG 2018

The figure below shows the common area in front of the tents.

Figure A8.3: Common area outside the tents

Source: Cross Cultural Consultants (2018)

Rooms

The rooms at the Visitor Park provide 2-3 beds in an adobe brick building with air-conditioning and a small sink / food preparation area outside the room (refer Figure A8.3). Clients who stay in the rooms have access to shared bathrooms and the Visitor Park meal service which provides three meals per day


Appendix 8: Accommodation model – Apmere MwerreFigure A8.4: Visitor Park rooms

Source: KPMG (2018)

Cabins

The cabins at the Visitor Park provide 4-5 beds in an adobe brick building with an internal bathroom and kitchen. The cabins also have a small television and air-conditioning (refer Figure A8.4). Clients who stay in the rooms can also access the meal service which provides three meals per day.

Figure A8.5: Visitor Park cabins

Source: KPMG (2018)

Services provided

The Visitor Park does not provide a case management approach to working with clients but AHL staff do work closely with other government agencies, and private service providers to assist clients to access support services. Examples of personal support services currently provided to clients include:

• referrals to local community support services, such as access to fundingfor crisis accommodation;

• organising hospital visits and doctor’s appointments;

• facilitating enrolment to school for school-aged children who stay at theVisitor Park for longer than two weeks;


Appendix 8: Accommodation model – Apmere Mwerre• facilitating transport for all children attending school;

• assisting with application for medium to long term accommodation; and

• providing access for nurses visiting patients onsite.

As discussed above, the Visitor Park also provides three cooked meals per day for all clients. These meals are provided in a shared, air-conditioned dining area.

All clients have access to the following shared facilities:

• air-conditioned communal lounge with TV;

• air-conditioned indoor dining room;

• communal spaces with covered areas;

• covered recreational areas which are often used for painting;

• communal playground; and

• laundry facilities.

House rules

Once admitted into the park, there are a number of house rules that a client must follow to remain in the facility including the following:

• not consume drugs/alcohol onsite,

• not smoke in the facility,

• not display violent behaviour,

• be respectful to staff and adhere to their instructions,

• adhere to the no pay, no stay policy.

Pages 152 through 159 redacted for the following reasons:- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Commercial in Confidence


kpmg.com.au kpmg.com.au/app

© 2018 KPMG, an Australian partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG name and logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International.

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

The information contained in this document is of a general nature and is not intended to address the objectives, financial situation or needs of any particular individual or entity. It is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute, nor should it be regarded in any manner whatsoever, as advice and is not intended to influence a person in making a decision, including, if applicable, in relation to any financial product or an interest in a financial product. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

To the extent permissible by law, KPMG and its associated entities shall not be liable for any errors, omissions, defects or misrepresentations in the information or for any loss or damage suffered by persons who use or rely on such information (including for reasons of negligence, negligent misstatement or otherwise).

Contact usTina DaveyDirector+ 61 411 381 [email protected]

homelessness & accommodation responses to rough sleepers · responses to rough sleepers in...

Documents