Screened Out: Housing Exclusion in Gippsland

By Wendy Gilbert,
Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network


In 2003 a study (1) was undertaken in Gippsland, which in part examined the role of caravan parks as a provider of crisis accommodation. Telephone interviews were conducted with 95 of the 108 parks listed in Gippsland. Information was collected about park trade, (tourist, permanent or both), off peak and peak rates, proximity to service infrastructure (shops, transport etc) and past and present availability of accommodation for people in housing crisis.

Many marginalised people in Gippsland fail to access private rental or Office of Housing (OoH) funded accommodation. As a result, they are forced to seek homelessness assistance to pay for caravan park or motel accommodation. For just over half of these people (2) no ongoing support will be provided, often leaving them at risk of imminent or ongoing housing failure.

In the study, caravan park managers were asked if they had ever provided emergency short term accommodation for people referred from local community agencies [if not, why not] and [if so] would they continue to provide accommodation. These questions quite frequently produced outspoken responses as the respondents used the opportunity to 'debrief'. Many managers commented that they had previously made accommodation available but had either ceased accepting housing referrals or had imposed strict selection criteria. Frequently stories were told of people who were assisted into caravan parks with no ongoing support or needing intensive support, which was not available. Other park owners spoke of losing money, often thousands of dollars in damage and rent arrears. One owner thought that agencies should have a police check undertaken on clients prior to referral. Respondents outlined a range of undesirable behaviours, which they perceived had been frequently demonstrated by people referred for crisis accommodation. These behaviours included: drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, self-harm, criminal, violent or antisocial behaviour by residents or their visitors and excessive noise. Some park managers stated that often an agency would pay the first two weeks rent in advance but the resident would stay on and fail to maintain regular rent payments themselves.

"Most people referred by…..had a range of needs and were not socially adept. Caravan park living is difficult for people with issues, as the very nature of parks requires confined living and socially responsive interaction. Most people are unable to manage their money and some exhibited violent behaviour which is a problem for other park residents and for my own family." (Caravan park manager – East Gippsland)

"I’m not a social worker; they need constant support not just a food parcel and a rent cheque." (Caravan park manager, Bass Coast)

Of the 95 caravan park managers interviewed, only 25 managers stated that they were willing to accept people in housing crisis who were referred by community agencies. Of these, unfortunately eight were managers of parks that are situated in very isolated areas making referrals impractical. In addition, a further 18 park managers (seven of these were in isolated areas) stated that under certain conditions, they might be willing to accept people in housing crisis. Generally, this would mean that the park manager would expect to "screen" the applicant fairly rigorously in order to assess suitability for accommodation. In summary only 17 (17.8%) caravan parks in Gippsland are both suitable and willing to 'unconditionally' take people in housing crisis.

For housing and support providers, the declining access to caravan parks presents significant challengers, with agencies unable to purchase park accommodation in many rural towns. The homeless service system is strongly focused at the crisis intervention end of service delivery with increasing demand being placed on agencies to find overnight or short term accommodation for people in crisis. Agencies reported that a significant amount of time is taken up trying to find crisis accommodation for people and frequently this may only occur if people are willing to relocate to another town or area.

"Most people have not been referred to us but seem to find us and still have a need for crisis accommodation. Element of the revolving door – clients repeatedly in housing crisis…." East Gippsland agency

Homeless people are not able to access motel or caravan park accommodation in Orbost, nor can they access caravan park accommodation in Sale, Warragul, Moe or Morwell. Boarding house and supported residential service closures in recent years have exacerbated housing options, with closures of facilities in Bairnsdale, Warragul, Sale, Morwell and Moe. In addition, many caravan parks have upgraded their facilities to cater for tourist trade, consequently pricing low income households out of the market.

The project also undertook an analysis of Housing Establishment Fund (HEF) (3) expenditure for crisis accommodation during two collection periods (4). A total of $48,032.48 was expended in purchasing crisis accommodation (5) across Gippsland during January to June 2003. Participating agencies purchased 1,382 days of crisis accommodation for 437 households and 188 accompanying children during this six month period. In comparing data from each local government area, it is clear short term housing outcomes are substantially driven by the type of accommodation agencies can purchase. In regions where agencies can still access caravan park accommodation, the daily rate for accommodation is more affordable. As a result, agencies are more likely to purchase longer periods of accommodation per household. In East Gippsland, where caravan park accommodation is still available, the average number of days purchased per household was five at a cost of $129.05. In the Latrobe Valley, where access to caravan parks is rare, households are more frequently accommodated in motels or hotels. Higher accommodation costs result in less assistance, with the average number of days purchased per household reducing to 2.4

The three month snapshot data collection requested different information from agencies. This collection revealed that across the region, accommodation was purchased most frequently from motels on 93 occasions, followed by caravan parks (41), hotel/motel (30) and other (4). The data indicated that on the night before seeking crisis accommodation, 54% of people had been in a state of primary or secondary homelessness (6).

In conclusion, the project found three findings which are of significant concern.

First, for many people, agency use of HEF for the purchase of crisis accommodation merely extended their current episode of homelessness and further contributed to the transient nature of their lives.

Second, the tenuous relationship between caravan park providers and funded agencies requires further discussion. Caravan park managers are indicating that if tenancies are to succeed, people need more assistance that a rent cheque. In circumstances where people had received agency assistance to find and pay for caravan park accommodation, caravan park managers assume the referring agency should also take responsibility for providing tenancy support. When this does not happen, and the tenancy breaks down quickly, park managers feel aggrieved and will blame the agency for setting them up with problem residents. It is critical that government and funded agencies recognise the value in supporting people to maintain caravan park tenancies. As a matter of urgency, housing and support providers must endeavour to strengthen relationships with existing caravan park providers. In addition, current and future funding should be directed towards projects that work extensively with caravan park communities in order to improve people’s access to health, housing, income and family support services.

Third, and directly related to the previous discussion, are the implications for homeless people if the current levels of housing and crisis accommodation disparity continue to exist. Housing services, and in particular SAAP transitional support services, are frequently constrained by the level of access people have to local housing options. In towns where people have poor access to housing, SAAP support is mostly limited to case managing clients in transitional accommodation or providing 'one off' assistance. Most people will move on if they are unable to secure housing quickly. When people move frequently, support agencies lose the opportunity to provide the necessary support and intervention required to break the cycle of homelessness.

Footnotes

1. Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network (2003), Gippsland Crisis Accommodation Review

2. Gippsland Housing and Support Services Network (2003), Gippsland Crisis Accommodation Review

3. HEF is funded in Victoria by the Department of Human Services, Office of Housing

4. Retrospective analysis of HEF January to June 2003 and a snapshot collection from September to November 2003

5. Project definition of crisis accommodation was from 1 night up to 14 days.

6. Project adaptation from Chamberlain and MacKenzie 1992 Model of Homelessness