Centre for Housing, Urban and Regional Planning (CHURP) Andrew Beer and Felicity Prance

Policy-maker Focus Group Project background Research questions Project aims Methodology Case study material Survey results Major research themes Moving forward

Background Context The Road Home: A National Approach to Reducing Homelessness National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH)

The Role of Local Government in Addressing Homelessness This research addresses two key research questions: What role does local government currently play in addressing homelessness and in achieving the targets established in The Road Home? Drawing upon best practice nationally and internationally, what role or roles could local governments play in reducing homelessness and its impacts in Australia?

The research project aims to: 1. Develop an understanding of good practice in the way local government can address homelessness; 2. Document examples of good practice in homelessness amongst local government in inner suburban, outer suburban and regional localities; 3. Provide advice to central governments on how they can better empower local governments to address homelessness within their jurisdictions; 4. Identify barriers to local governments more effectively dealing with homelessness; and, 5. Raise awareness of homelessness and effective strategies for dealing with it within the local government sector.

The research undertaken has been structured into a six stage methodology: 1. A literature review of international and domestic homelessness good practice; 2. A web-based national survey of local government current practices; 3. Nine case studies of local governments in inner city, suburban and rural areas will provide an in-depth understanding of the nature of homelessness challenges in these localities and the role of local governments in responding; 4. Six workshops with local councils in different States/Territories will present the interim findings and investigate the strategies, opportunities and constraints that are critical to more effective actions by government in this sphere; 5. A final workshop with policymakers in Canberra will be used to discuss the interim results and tease out the implications of the research for governments; and 6. A Final Report will be prepared and the Handbook for local governments readied.

Case Studies Nine case studies of local governments in inner city, suburban and rural areas aimed to capture in-depth understanding of the nature of homelessness challenges in these localities and the role of local governments in responding. Case study locations: Adelaide City Council and District Council of Ceduna in SA City of Port Phillip, Moreland City Council and Mildura Rural City Council in VIC Blacktown City Council and Clarence Valley Council in NSW City of Perth and City of Aramadale in WA

Survey Participants to date: 45% response rate at Wednesday 4 th July. Submissions close Friday 27 th July 44% participants classified their Local Government as “rural” whereas 38% classified their location as “urban” 35% participating Local Governments have between 25,001 and 100,00 persons living within their municipality 30% responses to date are from Local Governments in NSW

Respondents by population size:

Respondents by State:

Respondents classified according to city/urban/rural/remote:

Local Governments and Homelessness Does your Council have a formal homelessness policy or set of strategies?  87% answered ‘NO’ If your Council does NOT have a formal homelessness policy, does your Council have an INFORMAL policy or practices to support homelessness people?  54% answered ‘NO’ Yet, 54% respondents indicated that they felt homelessness is a problem in their Council area to some extent and 72% of participants indicated an awareness of people who are homeless or ‘at risk’ of homelessness sleeping in cars.

Local Government awareness of homelessness:

Local Government and Responsibility for Homelessness 36% of respondents suggested that a combination of all three tiers of Government is CURRENTLY primarily responsible for addressing the problems associated with homelessness, and 60% of respondents indicated that a combination of all three tiers of Government SHOULD be primarily responsible for addressing the problems associated with homelessness across Australia.

Local Government Responsibility for Homelessness:

Falling into and exiting from homelessness: the role of affordable housing 58% participants suggest that Local Government planning legislation and policies impact upon the homelessness to a limited extent or not at all, whereas only 30% of participants suggested that Local Government planning legislation and policies can have a large or some impact upon the homeless. Yet 55% of respondents felt that there is a demand for affordable housing option to a large extent in their Council area. But only 29% of participating Councils have an affordable housing target articulated in their “Development Plan” or “Planning Scheme/Strategy”.

Local Government Partnerships with the homelessness sector: 66% participating Councils would turn to non-government welfare providers, such as St Vincent de Paul if they became aware of a homeless problem in their Council area and 70% of Councils are aware of specialist homeless service providers operating or based in their municipality. Plus, 89% of Councils provide direct or indirect assistance to specialist services working with vulnerable groups such as:  Youth services;  Women escaping domestic violence;  Older persons; and  Newly arrived immigrants.

Local Government and the use of bylaws: Whilst 55% of respondents have bylaws that impact upon homeless people (such as regulations that may control unwanted behaviours in public space), Only 13% of respondents have had Inspectors/Rangers/Local Law Officers issue these expiation notices or fines to homeless people breaking the bylaws over the past year. Amongst these Councils, 76% have issued less than 5 fines in the past year. However 12% have issued more than 16 fines in the past year!

Summary of survey data to date: A majority of Councils recognise that:  homelessness is an issue in their municipality that requires attention;  Local Governments should play a role in the solution; and  This should be in partnership with other tiers of government and especially, front line service providers in their area. However, lack of financial and human resources significantly impede involvement in the sector. It’s important to note that despite the magnitude of efforts to encourage and facilitate Local Government engagement with affordable housing initiatives – uptake has been limited and Whilst a majority of Councils use their bylaws mindfully, a small number are issuing fines to homeless persons despite awareness of the negative consequences. This suggests that they may be using the bylaws as a ‘last resort’ because of lack of information or alternative strategies.

Major Research Themes: 1. Regulatory roles and Councils as public space managers. Minimising the capacity for Councils to indirectly cause harm 2. Responsibilities and resources. The opportunities for Councils to access funding streams and became facilitators in the sector 3. Developing formal homelessness policies and procedures. Is this the best solution? 4. Establishing a Homelessness Rights Charter. To what extent is this possible and desirable?

Moving Forward What is the best way or process to develop a Handbook of Good Practice for Council staff? What should it look like? What are the obstacles associated with using the Handbook and how can these be overcome?