Profile of Hanover clients 1992- 1996

The following profile highlights the key trends in clients using Hanover's assistance outlets over the past 5 years. Hanover operates 10 services in the inner and south-eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Over the period, 15,567 adult clients (and at least 2,700 accompanying children) made over 33,000 contacts for assistance.

There has been a significant shift in client gender over the past 5 years. In 1992, 39% of clients were female, whilst in 1995/6, 57% were female.(1)

The age profile of homeless people has changed substantially over the past decade. The average age of Hanover clients in the 70's and 80's was in the late 40's. In 1992, the mean age of crisis assistance clients was 34.2 years. By 1995/96, it has declined to 31.5 years. Two factors act to account for this change:

• increasing numbers of families and youth in crisis
  
  
• decreasing numbers of older single (predominantly male) long-term homeless.
  

TABLE 1: Family client cultural identity, 1992-96 (%)

Cultural identity	One parent families	Two parent families
UK/Eire	6.5	3.1
Europe (inc. Russian states)	28.5	21.9
Middle East	8.1	13.2
Central Asia	7.7	10.3
South Asia	5.6	13.0
S. E. Asia	9.5	3.6
Africa	9.9	6.7
Americas	6.1	10.3
New Zealand	14.9	12.3
Pacifc Islands	3.2	5.8
Total Non-Australian Clients	494	406

Whilst the largest population were of European background over the period, an increasing proportion of families are from the new migrant regions, such as the Horn of Africa, Sri Lanka, Central America, and South-east Asia.

Age of parents

The mean age of parents in families over the period was 30 years (SD 8.5). As expected, the great majority of parents were aged between 19 and 44 years (89%) However, a significant 4% of parents (n=152) were aged under 19 years The adults in two parent families were, on average, younger than single parents by a small but significant amount (TPF: 29.5, OPF: 30.5 yrs).

Income type

Over three-quarters (77%) of single parents were on Sole Parent Pensions at contact with Hanover, 9% in Newstart/Jobsearch, 5% on Disability Support Pension and 4% without any income. In contrast, 54% of adults in two-parent families were on Newstart/Jobsearch, 10% on Disability Support Pension or Sickness Allowance, 6% without income and 7% were in some kind of work.

Prior accommodation

Thirty-six per cent of families had come from private rental, whilst a significant proportion were 'doubling up' with friends (19%) or parents (9%). Overall, approximately 70% of families were literally homeless, in insecure or inappropriate housing options at contact. Nearly two-thirds of families had been in their previous or current housing for less than one month.

Reasons for contacting service

Those families retaining tenure in independent housing were seeking financial assistance, whilst others sought financial assistance to access temporary accommodation options (low cost hotels, caravan parks, boarding houses). Over half of all families contacting services (63% two-parent families, 57% single parents) in 1995/6 were seeking emergency accommodation.

Reasons for becoming homeless

Approximately one-third of families become homeless due to their inability to obtain or maintain housing. This could be for a range of causal factors including poverty, disability, or personal misfortune.

Over the past 5 years, an increasing proportion of families have become homeless literally due to eviction from rental housing (predominantly private rentals 4). In 1995/6, 37% of two-parent families and 24% of single parents became homeless for this reason.

Violence and family conflict are also significant causes of homelessness for families. In 1995/6, 20% of single parents reported violence as the cause of their crisis, whilst an additional 14% reported relationship breakdown.

In the case of two-parent families, 21% were unable to obtain accommodation due to a lack of financial resources. Two parent families also appear to be more 'mobile', with 11% having come from outside Victoria, compared to 6% of single parents.

Summary

Based on the presenting needs and backgrounds of families, the following typology may be suggested to summarise the predisposing factors leading to their housing crisis and homelessness.


TABLE 2: Typology of housing crisis experienced by families coming to Hanover

% Families	Description
35	Literally homeless - one-off crisis due to eviction, violence
35	Transient - short stays in insecure or inappropriate housing, often moving from crisis to crisis, reliant on support networks
30	Relatively stable housing - but in extreme poverty, which threatens housing tenure

The presenting reason(s) for becoming homeless may not reflect the underlying cause(s) of a family's homelessness. For example, a one-parent family may have come to Hanover from'interstate'- duly recorded as such on the data form - however, the cause may have been family conflict or domestic violence, which in turn may have been precipitated by personal or poverty related factors.

Hanover's experience shows that the most common cause of homelessness for femaleheaded one-parent families is family conflict and violence. In the case of two-parent families, the main cause of housing crisis is poverty and the lack of affordable housing.

Service utilization and unmet demand

A perception in these times is that welfare dependency is commonplace. Hanover's database enables some analysis of the extent of service use by clients in terms of numbers of contacts for assistance and the time interval over which contact is made. Over the four and a half years, 76% of family clients (n=3,834) made one contact only, whilst only 3% (n=152) made six or more contacts (Figure 3 - Patterns of service use 1992-6).

Over that period, of the 1,233 families (24%) who made multiple contacts with services, 29% used services for less than one week, whilst 28% have contacted services over a period exceeding one year. The above data suggests that for the great majority of families, their crisis is a one-off event.(5) Whilst for others, predisposing factors render them vulnerable to crises that threaten homelessness periodically. Greater understanding of these issues is critical to sound policy development.

In the 1995/6 period, Hanover was able to accommodate 9% of those seeking accommodation (n = 1179 families. A further 26% (310 families) were assisted with crisis or long-term accommodation costs.

However, the most frequent services provided were general housing advice (57% of all families) and referral elsewhere (44%). The majority of families seeking accommodation were unable to be assisted. This high level of unmet demand is not unique to Hanover, with over half families in crisis turned away from SAAP family services because of no vacancies (Merlo et al 1994: 82). Even taking into account possible over counting of clients in the SAAP data, the high level of unmet needs from families in crisis is of serious concern.

Explanations for increasing family homelessness

The changing demographic profile and presenting reasons for being homeless outlined above serve to indicate the range of predisposing factors leading to homelessness.

Social change in terms of trends in family formation and breakdown, structural unemployment and labour participation rates and growing inequality have contributed to increased numbers of families (especially one-parent families) experiencing poverty, conflict, stress and hence, vulnerability to crisis (Horn 1994).

In particular, whilst trends in the incidence of violence in the family home are difficult to ascertain, Victorian SAAP data indicates that increasing numbers of women are contacting domestic violence services for this reason. In 1991/2, 5,041 women reported DV as the reason for contact - this has increased to 7,344 (up 46%) for the period 1994/5 (Health and Community Services 1993 and 1995).

Clearly, this data and Hanover's experience demonstrates the extent to which violence contributes to the homelessness of women and their children.

In terms of structural changes to the economy and labour market, the great majority of families experiencing homelessness are on Government benefits or pensions. Long-term unemployment has disadvantaged many parents from being able to obtain secure employment (McClelland 1994).

The combination of the above changes has led to increasing polarisation in our community between families able to afford and maintain stable housing (the vast majority in home ownership) and those in housing stress (the majority in private rental) due to unemployment and poverty (Horn 1994).

The national Housing Strategy identified one-parent families as being especially vulnerable or at risk of homelessness (National Housing Strategy 1992). Hanover's data shows that this is still true today.

Currently, in Melbourne, a single parent with one child needs to spend 45% of income (including rent assistance) to rent a two-bedroom flat (DHS 1996: 7).

It is widely accepted that government housing assistance policies are inadequate and ineffective, and require reform. The limited numbers of net additions to public housing stock (5,000 in 1994/95) and the growing waiting list (235,000 nationally) national>) are just two key indicators of the situation (Newman in The Age; 9 October 1995: 15).

The reality is that most families have to find accommodation in the private rental market. Over the last 5 years, 42% of Hanover clients move into this tenure or exit from supported housing. Thus, all too often, they move back into potential housing stress

The high level of personal disadvantage faced by many who experience homelessness leaves them without the resilience to cope with the vagaries of the private rental market. In Australia, that market is skewed in favour of medium to high cost rentals, short-term tenures and a volatility in availability.

For example, in Melbourne, the vacancy rate for private rental properties has dropped over the past 5 years from over 5% in 1992 to under 2% currently (DHS 1996). At the same time, the proportion of Hanover clients reporting evictions as the cause of their homelessness has increased from 7% to 22% by June 1996 (Hanover 1996).


Figure 4: Private rental vacancy rate (Melbourne) and homeless eviction rate compared, 1992-96

The incidence of homelessness directly attributable to housing crisis appears particularly sensitive to the supply of low cost housing in the private rental market.

Related to the above trend is the level of discrimination experienced by vulnerable and disadvantaged households trying to obtain or retain private rental housing. Single parents are especially vulnerable as landlords and agents attempt to maximize returns for their properties. A recent Hanover client, Alison and her 4 children exemplifies a typical situation.

Alison . .. 'I came to Hanover when I was in a very stressful situation. I was being evicted and I was very emotional.' Alison is a sole parent with four children aged from 13 weeks up to 12 years. She rang Hanover Dandenong for help because she and her family were about to be evicted. 'I was living in a house which I has rented through an estate agent. It had been very difficult to find a house in the first place because I was told landlords didn't want sole parents. The estate agent told me that the owner of the house I eventually rented wasn't very happy to have me, simply because I was a sole mother.' Alison was paying 47% of her income on rent. 'Although money was tight, I always managed to keep pretty well up-to-date with my rent. A couple of times I got slightly behind - never more than two weeks - but I would see the estate agent, explain the difficulty and always catch up again. The same thing happened when I was evicted, but this time the landlord went to the tribunal to have me evicted. By the time the tribunal gave the go-ahead to evict me, my rent was fully paid. No-one had told me that if I didn't actually turn up to the tribunal in person, an eviction notice could be served.' 'The first I knew was when the police turned up on my door-step to carry out the eviction order. My baby was due in three weeks. I was desperate.' 'A friend found a crisis help-line for me to ring and they told me to contact Hanover.' 'When I was first shown around the Hanover house I was being offered to live in, I was so overwhelmed I couldn't say anything. I was so relieved I just wanted to cry.'

The private rental market in its current form is unable to meet the needs for low-cost, secure housing. Initiatives to stimulate supply are required. It is equally important however that effective interventions are in place to minimise inappropriate evictions and discrimination against the disadvantaged.


Impact of homelessness on children

The crisis of homelessness and transience has a significant impact on all members of the family. However, arguably the greatest impact is felt by the accompanying children in terms of their health and personal development.

Hanover's recent joint research with Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital has shown the extent of this impact (Efron 1996). This study of 51 children of all ages has indicated that these children are significantly more likely to have behavioural problems compared to children in the general population. Over one-third had significant behavioural disturbances as rated by their parent(s). (6)

Over half of the 28 school aged children had attended 5 or more different schools. The children had extremely limited social interactions. Nearly half of the parents had moved house 4 or more times in the preceding 12 months. The frequent changes in school and home clearly impact on their development and learning.

The study found that the physical health of the children was affected in that they had a higher than average occurrence of asthma, ear infections, skin problems and development delays (Figure 5 - Children with chronic illness). However, this was nowhere near the level reported for homeless families in the United States and U.K.. Probable factors to explain these differences include the more extensive income and hearth 'safely nets', improved nutritional status and the less severe climate in Australia.

Future prospects

In 1994, I wrote that there would be '... further shifts towards rental allowances rather than the direct provision of public housing. Public housing is increasingly accepted as a welfare provision - not an alternative tenure. This will result in lower vacancy rates and higher rentals at the lower end of the private rental market.' (Horn 1994: 8). This trend has occurred and will continue with the new Coalition Government in Canberra.

Government policies act to influence the extent of homelessness at two levels. First, macro- economic policies impact on all sections of the housing market, including availability of finance for home purchase and contribution, stimulation of demand through interest rate policy, taxation policy and economic growth generally (affecting employment levels).

Current government policy based on a reduction of the overall deficit is likely to result in either increased unemployment (especially long-term unemployment) or at best a steady unemployment rate (8-9% nationally). The poverty associated with long-term unemployment renders many families vulnerable to homelessness - this will continue under current policy directions.

Second, specific policies influence directly or indirectly the supply and cost of private rental housing. Reforms to the provision of housing assistance under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement are likely to result in greater reliance on the private rental market to provide low cost housing. Public housing will at best be retained at its current stock levels - however, it is more likely, if left to individual States to decide, that state levels will decline in the next decade.

Policy that relies on the private rental market to effectively and equitably provide for low income households is misguided and short-sighted. Over the past decades, investors in housing have shied away from low-cost housing. Indeed there are incentives in the housing and finance markets not to invest in this area. Taxation policy (negative gearing, capital gains for example) also effect both investor and investment property characteristics (Elton 1991). In a low inflation economic cycle, incentives, in terms of capital growth, to invest in private rental will become weaker still, thereby reducing the supply of this stock especially at the low cost end ( in the absence of any other market changes).

The current housing reform process is driven in part by long-standing concerns about inequity in rent assistance across tenures. The direction of the reforms reflects pressure from the National Commission of Audit and COAG for greater clarity in Commonwealth State roles.

Under the proposals being discussed, the public housing rent related system will be combined with the DSS rent assistance program, with the level of assistance determined by the Government's affordability objectives (Foster 1996). However, the other 'failures' of the housing market appear to be ignored.

There are therefore significant risks associated with the reforms as proposed:

• State governments may 'allow' contraction of public housing stock through asset sales
  
  
• the elimination of the rent subsidy advantage for public renters will encourage some to shift tenure (thus freeing up some public stock so long as stock levels do not decline), but will increase demand for private rental stock in the short term
  
  
• increased rent assistance to private renters will thus lead to higher rents and lower affordability
  
  
• it is doubtful whether increased demand by itself will result in increased supply of appropriate low cost housing
  
  
• rent assistance based on a standard affordability measure and rent level cannot cope with regional variations in rents - rational renters will move to maximise their financial situation - possibly lending to slum areas within zones
  
  
• inequities existing in the private rental market (for example, discrimination and insecurity of tenure) will be exacerbated without additional reforms
  

Policy challenges

At the structural level, policies are required that give greater emphasis to reducing unemployment (especially long term unemployment) by a substantial amount, to developing targeted training to the most disadvantaged in the labour market and to stimulate the supply of low cost private and public housing.

In addition, more effective interventions are required to protect and support women and their children from violence in the family home. The challenge for government is to significantly strengthen the range of education, preventative and crisis response programs dealing with violence.

Families who are struggling with poverty, allied with social isolation and personal disadvantage, require accessible and affordable supports. Not only are these critical to dealing with crises, but community based services (for example, maternal and child health centres, kindergartens, school support programs) are essential to pick up early signs of crisis or trauma for parents and children.

Hanover's research on the health needs of children show that more appropriate intervention and models of service delivery are required to assist workers in homeless person's services to understand and respond to these needs.

Homelessness is a key indicator of the overall health of our society. The increase in family (and indeed youth) homelessness should be of serious concern to us all. The cost of family homelessness is enormous in personal, social and economic terms. It is vital that policies, such as those outlined, are developed to prevent homelessness and to support those in crisis effectively.

1. There has been a similar shift in the gender of clients of the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program nationally: in 1992 - 55% male/45% female to 51% male/49% female in 1995. (Sources: SAAP Home for a Night, May 1992 and November 1995).
   
   
2. A higher proportion of SAAP clients are younger compared to Hanover clients as Hanover does not operate youth refuges. Source of SAAP data: Home for a Night May 1992 and November 1995.
   
   
3. For example, the Victorian data shows that in 1994/5 4,839 adult clients were in families, compared to 3,202 in the previous year. Source: Victorian SAAP Annual Reports, D.H. and C.S. and La Trobe University
   
   
4. In the first 6 months of 1996, 92% of those reporting eviction, had been evicted from public housing. Over the past 5 years, this proportion has varied between 89% and 93%.
   
   
5. It should be noted that there will be a degree of under reporting of multiple contacts due to different partners from two parent families presenting for assistance, as well as errors in personal details provided. These are estimated to be less than 3%.
   
   
6. The children's behaviour was measured using Achenbach's Child Behaviour Checklist which comprises a comprehensive list of items which are rated by the parent using a standardised rating scale. Scores derived across three behavioural domains were compared with normative data on Australian children (Efron 1996).

Efron, D. et al (1996), 'Can we stay here?' A study of the impact of family homelessness on children's health and well-being, Hanover Welfare Services, Melbourne

Elton, B. and Associates (1991), The Supply Side of the Private Rental Market, National Housing Strategy Background Paper 2, AGPS, Canberra

Foster, C. (1996), Directions in Commonwealth Housing Policy: A Paper presented at the 1996 National Conference on Homelessness, Council to Homeless Persons, 4-6 September, 1996, Melbourne

Hanover Welfare Services (1996) Hanover Stats and Facts: Housing and Homelessness, October 1996, Melbourne

Health and Community Services, Victoria (1993), SAAP Client Data Collection Annual Report July 1991 - June 1992, H and CS and La Trobe University, Melbourne

Health and Community Services, Victoria (1995), SAAP Client Data Collection Annual Report July 1994 - June 1995, H and CS and La Trobe University, Melbourne

Horn, M. (1994), Families and Homelessness - The Next Ten Years: A Paper presented at the IYF Conference, Adelaide, 20-23 November 1994

Human Services, Victoria (1996), Rental Report, 33, June 1996, Office of Housing, DHS, Melbourne

McClelland, L.A. (1994), 'Families and Financial Disadvantage' in Family Matters, 37, April 1994, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, pp 29-33

Merlo, R. et al (1994), Services forthe Homeless 1990-92: A Statistical Profile, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, AGPS, Canberra

National Housing Strategy (1992), National Housing Strategy: Summary of Papers, AGPS, Canberra

Newman, J. (1996), 'Vision for those who can't afford a dream', in The Age, 9th October 1996, Melbourne, 13