making connections- report on rooming house project-final

of 24

MAKING CONNECTIONS Making connections for residents residing in privately

run rooming houses

of 24

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of the following people and

organisations:

Firstly it is because of the eighteen tenants who participated in the project and gave

generously of their time and knowledge that this report was able to be produced. Due to

confidentiality they cannot be individually named but their input was greatly appreciated.

Marie McLaine, Judy Cooper and Peter Sibly as part of the project steering committee who had the vision for the project and then instigated and resourced it to completion.

Robert Martin and the Salvation Army South East Services Network

Mornington Peninsula Shire for the grant to run this pilot project.

Sharon Allen, Chisholm TAFE Community Services Diploma student, who brought much needed support to the project. Tania Pozzer, a private rooming house operator who actively participated and encouraged the processes of finding out what people need to improve their tenancy in rooming houses. The many workers and agencies who gave insight and support for this project and continue to work towards better standards for people living in rooming houses, particularly those mentioned below:

Loretta Buckley- Peninsula Youth and Family Services

Lizette McCasker- Peninsula Youth and Family Services

Marc Westly- Housing for the Aged Action Group

Alfred Morehu- WAYSS Rooming House Manager

Jasmin Underwood – Peninsula Community Legal Centre

Lyle Caulsen- Frankston City Council

Kathy Rodis- RDNS Homeless Persons Program

Jean Phillips, Margaret Oravecz and Catherine Oldsmeadow -MI Health

Richard Casley- Private Rooming House Owner

It has been a great honour to work with tenants, owners and agencies and my hope is that

together we can continue to improve the accommodation options in the Mornington

Peninsula particularly for those who are most vulnerable.

Janet Reid

Project Officer

Oct 2014

of 24

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4 The Project- Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................. 4 Peninsula Youth & Family Services ............................................................................................ 4 Mornington Peninsula Shire ...................................................................................................... 5 History of the project ................................................................................................................. 5

What is a rooming house? .................................................................................................. 5 Mornington Peninsula Shire ............................................................................................... 6

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 6 Initial interviews ................................................................................................................. 6 Rooming House visits ......................................................................................................... 6 Tenant Focus groups .......................................................................................................... 7 Confidentiality .................................................................................................................... 7 limitations- .......................................................................................................................... 7

What Tenants say about rooming houses ................................................................................. 7 Rooming House Visits ......................................................................................................... 9 Focus Groups .................................................................................................................... 10

What Owners say about rooming houses................................................................................ 11 What Agencies working with people living in rooming houses say......................................... 13 Referrals into Rooming Houses ............................................................................................... 16 Tenant Outcomes from Project ............................................................................................... 17 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 17

Support worker ................................................................................................................. 17 Training for Owners .......................................................................................................... 17 Further Research .............................................................................................................. 18

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 18 References ............................................................................................................................... 19 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 19 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 20

APPENDIX 1 .......................................................................................................................... 21 APPENDIX 2 .......................................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX 3 .......................................................................................................................... 23 APPENDIX 4 .......................................................................................................................... 24

of 24

INTRODUCTION

Privately owned rooming houses in the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula areas are often

the only affordable accommodation option people have due to the lack of social,

community and public housing. Rooming house tenants often have high needs that include

mental health issues, poor employment prospects, negative tenancy history, lack of

connection to significant others or community supports, alcohol and substance addictions.

Tenancies in privately owned rooming houses frequently breakdown and tenants repeatedly

present at housing and homelessness services such as Peninsula Youth & Family Services for

assistance in accessing similar accommodation. Private rooming house owners often report

they are frustrated with their tenants because of their complex needs and difficult

behaviour and feel they need support in dealing with such vulnerable people. Consecutively,

the Mornington Peninsula Shire is concerned that private rooming houses meet minimum

standards and require they be registered to ensure the overall safety and welfare of

tenants.

To understand the issues around living in a private rooming house on the Mornington

Peninsula for residents and owners a six month project with Peninsula Youth and Family

Services (PYFS) and Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (MPS) was developed to investigate

a potential model to support rooming house tenants and rooming house owners.

THE PROJECT- GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

This project aimed to accomplish three main objectives:

Identify issues from the tenant perspective around private rooming house living ,

available support services and connections to local community.

Assess current referral processes and recommend improvements for referral to private

rooming houses to facilitate better tenant placement.

Document a model of operation for private rooming house owners that provides a

positive living situation for both tenant and owner.

PENINSULA YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES

Peninsula Youth and Family Services support people who are homeless or at risk of

homelessness within Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula. PYFS provides assessment,

information, advocacy, support, and referral to a range of accommodation and housing

services that includes privately owned rooming houses. PYFS support a Rights Based

Approach which maintains that housing is a human right and that permanent housing is a

right and not a privilege. In 2013 PYFS assisted over 7,000 clients with housing related

issues. PYFS have been increasingly concerned that services such as homelessness services,

mental health providers, justice departments, police and other welfare organisations have

been referring people into privately run rooming houses without ongoing support or follow

up.

of 24

MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE

The Mornington Peninsula Shire has a long history of facilitating improved housing

outcomes for low income residents. The Shire has been a forerunner in developing

affordable, accessible and appropriate housing policy with organisations such as Women’s

Housing Ltd, Community Housing Limited, and the Department of Human Services. MPS has

witnessed the growth of registered and unregistered privately run rooming houses in the

wider metropolitan area and has reacted quickly to ensure that privately run rooming

houses on the Peninsula are registered. It is projected that the amount of private rooming

houses will continue to grow as a response to the increased demand for affordable housing.

HISTORY OF THE PROJECT

Since 2011 MPS and PYFS together with other local community service providers have been

meeting regularly through the Triple AAA Housing Group. The Triple AAA Housing has a

focus on Affordable, Accessible, Appropriate housing options for low income earners and

Centrelink recipients. During this time it has been noted that the support needs of people

living in privately owned rooming houses are not being addressed.

In early 2013, a private rooming house owner approached Mornington Peninsula Shire with

a concern for one of the tenant’s severe mental health issues. The owner recognised that

many residents had high needs and did not feel equipped to support them.

In conjunction, PYFS & MPS staff attended the National Housing Conference held in

Adelaide and viewed three different models of affordable housing for low income earners

and people who had experienced chronic housing issues. Each model provided ongoing

support to tenants and it was evident that each contributor to the model, (support workers,

volunteers, funded housing organisations and other interested parties) was committed to

ensuring tenants were holistically supported and as a result accommodation breakdowns

were almost non-existent.

From this PYFS and MPS recognised that pathways needed to be developed for tenants to

be provided with meaningful and consistent support services and linkages to the

community. A research worker who had experience in homelessness issues was employed

to investigate whether a model of support would improve outcomes for private rooming

house tenants.

WHAT IS A ROOMING HOUSE?

Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, a rooming house is a building where:

one or more rooms is available for rent, and

the total number of people who may occupy those rooms is four or more

residents usually have shared access to bathrooms, kitchens, laundries and living

areas

the owner and their family generally do not live on the premises

Different rental agreements are likely to exist for different residents.

(Consumer Affairs Victoria, 2012)

of 24

MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE

In the Mornington Peninsula Shire there are

4 privately owned registered rooming houses

2 community housing run rooming houses

5 rooming houses seeking registration

METHODOLOGY

Research was undertaken using the method of Participatory Action Research (PAR), a

process of social research that looks to improve a particular situation by working closely

with all who have a stake in the outcome. This method was used because it is particularly

suited to projects wanting to understand the experiences of the participants and

empowering them to have increased control over their lives. The power is equally

distributed between the researchers and the researched and those being researched are

involved in the process actively. (Wadsworth, 2011)

Participants were rooming house tenants living in two privately owned rooming houses on

the Mornington Peninsula. One rooming house had a 21 room capacity whilst the other had

9 rooms. Following PAR principles, research with a focus on letting people tell their stories

and identify their own needs and solutions was forefront in approach.

The research activities were conducted over a period of six months with a specific focus on

the Mornington Peninsula Shire and entailed the following:

INITIAL INTERVIEWS were undertaken with residents, private rooming owners and organisations

that make referrals into rooming houses. Questions to residents were open ended and

included the following:-

What is good about living in a rooming house?

What is bad about living in a rooming house?

What support needs do you think are needed for people living in a rooming house?

Specific demographic questions were included where appropriate to provide meaning to the

data. See appendix 1 for detailed questionnaire.

Each participant was provided with a $20 Coles gift card in exchange for their participation

in individual interviews.

ROOMING HOUSE VISITS- Results from the initial interviews indicated that residents wanted a support worker to visit on a regular basis. (Appendix 2) Two workers were then appointed to visit each rooming house once a fortnight bringing a light lunch. These visits were kept deliberately informal without a set agenda. These visits allowed residents to continue voicing their thoughts and researchers were able to learn from this knowledge and focus on the processes that would help residents to improve their situation.

of 24

TENANT FOCUS GROUPS were held with residents toward the end of the project to ascertain the

effectiveness of visits and to communicate questionnaire data. Residents were provided

with a meal at Seawinds Community Hub and a material aid voucher.

Describe your rooming house

Did having a worker visit your rooming house regularly help you in any way? If yes, in

what way? If no, why not?

If a worker continued to visit what should they do?

What support needs do you have?

CONFIDENTIALITY – Individual residents have not been identified unless they gave permission. However, it was acknowledged that it is difficult to provide anonymity to each resident interviewed because they live and work within the community, even if they were not named. LIMITATIONS- Private rooming houses residents who took part in the research were all with the same private rooming house proprietor. This project was designed to provide a snapshot of privately owned rooming houses operators and residents. Due to funding parameters, the project ran two days per week over a six month period.

WHAT TENANTS SAY ABOUT ROOMING HOUSES

Tenants of rooming houses have arrived for a

number of different reasons, some because they like

the lifestyle and others because it is the only option

they have. The main reasons people say they lived in

a rooming house was because it was affordable and

easy to get into. Family conflicts, bad housing

history, limited income and/or lack of suitable

housing options are a few of the circumstances that

cause people to choose a rooming house with a small

percentage stating they prefer rooming houses to

anywhere else. ‘The social part is good, living here has a country life feel about it, I am so

happy living here’ says one rooming house tenant.

There is a similar demographic with

tenants living in rooming houses, most

are between 30 and 40 years of age

and most are male (78%). All were on

Centrelink benefits, either receiving

Newstart or a Disability Support

Pension and most hadn’t had secure

housing for more than 5 years.

of 24

When the tenants were initially asked what the best part about

living in a rooming house, the majority said, it was the social

aspect. ‘I’m a bit of a loner and I get depressed, these people get

me out of my room’ said one tenant. The second response was

affordability – ‘It’s easy to get in and easy to get out’ stated Bob, a

tenant of 4 months who has been living in and out of rooming

houses for the past 11 years. In talking to tenants it became clear

that rooming house living isn’t their dream but it has provided a

roof over their head. Many of the tenants have had a long history

of rooming house living.

When they were asked ‘What are some of the bad parts about living in a Rooming House?’

there were a number of responses given but drug/alcohol use and lack of privacy ranked the

highest. ‘This is a hard place to be if you want to quit smoking or

drinking’ said one tenant, ‘Junkies are scary, that is when all the

problems start’ said another. One tenant explained he was an

alcoholic and finds it easier to drink in a rooming house, even

though he had gone 8 days without a drink he says it is tough to

resist the culture.

Sharing a bathroom and kitchen with people is also a challenge.

‘You shouldn’t have to live with other peoples’ dirt’ was one

remark by a tenant. Samantha who has just recently moved into a rooming house with her

partner commented, ‘I can’t even live with my family much less strangers.’ Samantha and

her partner would much rather have their own place but getting the bond and rent in

advance together is a challenge when you are living on Newstart and paying $175 a week

each to live in the rooming house.

Tenants had a lot to say when it came to ways to improve rooming

house living. Stricter regulations on rooming houses, common

areas to relax in, cheaper rent, better referrals for people coming

in were all suggestion made. One tenant felt having a ‘lead tenant’

would help sort out the issues and make the rules and regulations

clear from the start when a new tenant moves in. ‘Agencies have

to understand the individual house and the people in there and try

and find the best fit for each house. It only takes one person to

make it all go to crap and it snowballs from there.’

of 24

When talking with tenants about support needs it became apparent that people often feel

lonely and isolated and supports were needed. ‘Having a life coach visit this place would be

great, people get very down and need support and

connection to services’ said Ethan, a tenant who has been

living in and out of rooming houses for years. Another

young man stated ‘I have seen a lot of death and some days

I just don’t want to go on living. I get very down. People in

here are pretty depressed and having someone come here

might get them out of their rooms’. Almost all people

interviewed brought the issue of people being depressed

and half of those all felt a regular support worker coming in

would help.

The other significant needs tenants identified were food assistance and material aid. ‘Food

is a great connector and by the time people pay their rent there isn’t a lot left over for food.’

Over a third of people interviewed mentioned the need for food assistance and many

reflected that they didn’t feel people were eating and looking after themselves. ‘It was good

to have sandwiches today, someone knows we are alive!’ said Frank, a resident with

significant health issues who often finds it difficult to get out and cook for himself.

ROOMING HOUSE VISITS

As a response to the initial one-on-one interviews, regular visits to the rooming houses were

established. Two workers visited both rooming houses

fortnightly and provided a light lunch and the chance for a

chat. As part of participatory action research, it was

important to build relationship and not impose solutions

onto clients. The chats were mostly social but as questions

came up workers were able to share relevant information,

mostly around where services were available in the local

area. Often other residents knew more about local

resources and supports than the workers and were able to

assist each other. Some residents took up the opportunity

to take the worker aside and make enquiries ranging from

rent in arrears to finding a lost family member.

Different agencies were also invited to visit during the lunchtime visits to help bring

resources and support to tenants. A worker from Seawinds Community Hub in Rosebud

West came along to talk to tenants about volunteering and training opportunities available

in the community. A Salvation Army Corps Major came and spoke about the free local

breakfasts in Rosebud and how the Salvation Army can help if needed. From a worker’s

point of view, having the agency visits was not as effective as hoped. Tenants seemed less

engaged and didn’t hang around to talk during the meal when there were visiting agencies

Tenant Identified Support Needs %

Health 28%

Material Aid 22%

Employment 22%

Budgeting 17%

Housing 11%

Legal 6%

Social Inclusion 6%

‘It was good to have

sandwiches today,

someone knows we

are alive!’ Julian,

rooming house

tenant

of 24

in attendance. Having agencies visits consecutively may

have been the issue so after noticing the lack of

engagement workers decided to stop having agencies

visit for a few weeks and numbers climbed back again.

On the whole tenants were easy going and willing to

share parts of their life stories with workers- the good

and the bad. Tenants gratefully acknowledged the fact

that workers brought food and were willing to share

time with them. Even though they were living in a house

with lots of people around them, some seemed more

isolated than others and workers felt challenged in

engaging those who would not come out of their rooms.

However, the workers observed there was an increase in

engagement and request for support towards the end of

the project. This indicated that both time and

relationships are key to effective support.

FOCUS GROUPS

Focus groups were organised to get feedback from

residents about support worker visits and as a follow up

from the individual interviews. Separate focus groups

from each house were held at Seawinds Community Hub

with a free lunch for all who participated.

Each group was asked the following questions-

Describe your Rooming House

Was a support worker visiting the rooming house helpful? Why or Why not?

How could we support people in rooming houses better?

The first question was used as a warm up and a way to get the group talking. Answers

reflected much of the same information as the earlier individual interviews held at the

beginning of the research. However, there were many more negative comments about

rooming houses than positive.

Regarding support worker visits, the groups from both the rooming houses overwhelmingly

stated they saw it as a positive, with responses such as ‘because it was a new introduction

to different services’, ‘social activity, got people out of their room’, ‘someone to ask what’s

in the area’ and ‘got a chance for new tenants to meet’.

The final question was ‘How could we support people in rooming houses better?’ There

were a wide range of responses given, from support and information, assistance in filling

out forms, financial counselling, employment assistance, more field trips. Even the exercise

Stan has worked most of his

life and hates not working. He

used to be a foreman with an

excavation company as well as

having been a manager at a

retail store. His marriage

broke down he hasn’t seen his

kids in over a year. He lived on

the beach for 9 weeks before

finding out about PYFS, he was

sitting in a McDonalds, he used

to go there so he could watch a

bit of TV and get out of being

outside and 2 older ladies

started talking to him. They

were church ladies and as he

relayed his story they told him

about PYFS. Stan has never

needed any of these services

and didn’t even know they

existed. He went to PYFS and

they helped him get into the

rooming house.

of 24

of the residents travelling together for the focus groups seemed to be an enjoyable and

most commented on wanting to do it again.

In the group from the smaller rooming house both time and group size allowed questions to

be asked about the group’s housing goals. Their initial response was money, work, car then

upon reflection decided you need a whole lot of skills and abilities these included self-

esteem, confidence, understanding of goals, initiative, education, direction, motivation,

experience and self-awareness.

Overall the feedback from the residents was positive to having the workers visiting and the

support and information they provided was of benefit to the residents. Each resident had

their own reason as to why it was of benefit, some tangible others not.

WHAT OWNERS SAY ABOUT ROOMING HOUSES

For many people Private Rooming House owners are a bit of an unknown. When

interviewing tenants or agencies that work with Rooming House owners, the perception and

or consensus is that money is the core reason for owning a rooming house. However, in

speaking with Rooming House owners, it was much more than just financial gain that keeps

them in the rooming house business. One rooming house owner said, ‘I know a lot of

people think money is the biggest reason I do this, but the reality is I enjoy the people, I find

most of them are good folks, they have interesting stories and most of the time are easy to

have around.’

For many of the owners, they feel they are doing the community a service by providing

affordable accommodation for vulnerable people. When asked what was good about

rooming houses, helping people was the main answer they gave. ‘At the end of the day it

does have to be viable, but we do have a social conscience and that is also part of why we

do it.’

When asked what the negative things are about running rooming houses the answers were

more prolific. For one owner the danger of being assaulted was high on the list. Since

becoming a rooming house operator this owner had felt the need to get self-defence

instruction and at times had concerns for his personal safety. Another operator said the

worst thing about running a rooming house was people who violate the rules and won’t

leave. ‘It is very hard to get some people out even though they have done the wrong thing

and are making the rest of the tenants unhappy.’ Another operator agrees stating ‘Often an

owner can’t do much to a disruptive tenant until they do something drastic or don’t pay

their rent. Sometimes you have to wait for something bad to happen before you can do

something, which is frustrating because a lot of upset happens to the rest of the house in

the in-between.’

‘In an ideal world you would like your tenants to have an option which gives them

opportunity to move out/up easily but the reality is the more options, the worse they

behave. The less options, the better they behave. If it is easy to get in and out they tend not

to respect the tenancy and won’t think twice about burning their bridges….as the market

of 24

gets less responsive to needs, tenancies become a valuable thing and tenants won’t abuse

the system.’ (Rooming House Owner)

Rooming House operators had much to say in regards to improving life in a rooming house.

One of the main issues was the referral process and the

communication between agency, tenant and operator.

‘As Landlords we should have the right to ask questions

and get honest answers’ said one rooming house owner.

Most operators meet personally with each potential

client before allowing them into one of their properties

but sometimes tenants do not present with complex

issues and it isn’t until a few days into the residency that

trouble starts. One operator said ‘it is very hard to say

no to someone who arrives with suitcase in hand asking

where their room is, even though you as an operator

know they are going to be a problem.’ This becomes

especially difficult when they have been referred by an

agency and the owner trusts the agency would only

recommend them if they felt it was the best for both the

new individual as well as the existing tenants.

One owner has found that some workers put the needs

of their client over the needs of all in the house. This

operator would like to establish a ‘privacy disclosure’ for

clients wanting to come into his rooming houses. This

would give the worker the right to disclose any

information that is relevant for the operator to know in

order to ensure the safety of all in the house.

In regards to working with different agencies, there was

a mixed reaction from owners. One owner will only take

referrals from PYFS because she found Department of

Justice and mental health provider referrals are too

much trouble. Another expressed frustration when

workers only consider the side of the client and not the

side of the owner. The owner gave an example of a

client who complained to the housing agency about the

standards of his rooming house but failed to

communicate to worker that they were the one who

actually caused much of the damage. The workers

believe the client and didn’t investigate allegation with

owner and stopped sending potential clients to the

house.

Frank got into Rooming

Houses by accident. He

had bought Smiths

Holiday House in 2001

with the intention of

fixing it up and making it

a backpacker's and

holiday accommodation.

He found himself with a

large building and not

many backpackers.

Someone contacted him

about the vacancy sign

at front – ‘did he have a

room to rent?’ He started

letting a few people rent

weekly and then a few

agencies started to ask if

they could put people in.

Next thing Frank has 4

men in suits at his place

giving him the 3rd

degree. He had no idea

what he was doing was

running a rooming

house. They required

him to register and bring

things up to standard

and gave him 3 years to

do it. He has done that

and now is expanding.

of 24

Another area of improvement was support from local councils. For rooming house owners

who feel that a rooming house is providing a much needed service in the community then

council should support their business. Most feel the registration process is fairly

straightforward but that if it got too complicated it just wouldn’t be worth it.

Some owners get support from the Residential Accommodation Association of Victoria

(RAAV) which is an association created to support rooming house owners and to encourage

best practice standards. On their website there is information on most aspects of running a

rooming house as well as case studies to encourage a high standard of practice. As the

increase of rooming house continues RAAV encourages new owners to consider all aspects

of the industry. In their handbook ‘Running a Better Rooming House: A best practice

handbook for operators’ they state ‘The long-term success of operating rooming houses

requires taking a sound commercial approach; this will reduce the chances of you making

quick or poor decisions. This is especially important if you do not have much experience

operating a rooming house.’ (RAAV, 2013)

Though time did not permit an in-depth look at a wide variety of rooming house operators,

it was clear that operators are a key part of maintaining a successful tenancy and are part of

the solution to lack of accommodation on the Mornington Peninsula. Developing

relationships between agencies, owners and services could assist in providing support for

tenants and is worth pursuing.

WHAT AGENCIES WORKING WITH PEOPLE LIVING IN ROOMING HOUSES SAY

There are a wide variety of agencies that have connections with rooming houses. Housing

agencies, mental health workers, chronic health providers and community organisations

often have clients in rooming houses and have insight into the support needs of people

living there. ‘For many of my clients who have burned all their bridges with family and

private rental, rooming houses are the only option.’ (Homelessness health worker) All

agencies interviewed agreed that rooming houses are providing a roof over people’s head

and have had to be a solution for people needing crisis and short term accommodation.

‘Workers are protecting the individual, Landlords are protecting the group’

Rooming House owner

of 24

Like the owners, agencies had much more to say about the negatives of a rooming house

and the improvements needed. One of the main issues mentioned by agencies was referral

processes. ‘One of the biggest problems is that rooming house owners procure tenants from

a wide variety of agencies – Mental Health, Dept. of Justice, Domestic Violence agencies,

this can cause a melting pot of people and can be dangerous for those most vulnerable.’

(Housing worker) Developing a referral system that assists in placing people in the right

rooming house is needed but how that works and who would facilitate it is not so clear.

One worker who has worked in advocacy for tenant issues observed that having multi-

agency referrals into rooming house can result in rooming owners ‘double dipping’. He gave

the example of Housing Agency B financially supporting a client with rent in advance for 2

weeks at Blue Fish Rooming House. After three days the client leaves because they feel

scared and intimidated. The client then goes to Housing Agency C in a different area and

gets another lot of rent in advance and moves into a different rooming house. Blue Fish

Rooming House keeps the clients rent in advance but puts another tenant in his room.

One health worker stated the relationship between rooming house owners and workers

operates on ‘mutual dishonesty- owners don’t disclose the state of their houses and

agencies don’t disclose the client issues or potential conflict.’

This issue of referral leads into another key issue that over half of the agencies interviewed

brought up. The issue of gender imbalance in rooming houses seems to concern many of

the agencies working with clients in rooming houses. ‘One female to eight men creates a

bad mix, especially for the women who may have had previous experience with domestic

violence’. (Mental health worker) The need for rooming houses that catered to specific

needs was highlighted. Women only, over 55 years old, single men, families were all

suggested as areas of specific need.

Kathy Rodis, an RDNS Homeless Persons Program nurse, visits a number of rooming houses

in the Frankston area. Kathy has observed that many of the tenants she is in contact with

from the Rooming Houses are getting very ad hoc support from agencies and the

effectiveness of the support is often limited. ‘The clients in rooming houses often have very

complex needs and this requires workers to have a targeted mandate to work with

marginalised people in rooming house and a specific set of skills’, Kathy says. ‘Workers can

be overwhelmed by the needs encountered. Clients soon get discouraged and stop

engaging if they perceive that the worker can’t deliver.'

‘Rooming houses operate on mutual dishonesty- owners don’t disclose the

state of their houses and agencies don’t disclose the client issues or

potential conflict.’ Housing/Health worker

of 24

‘Often for vulnerable clients organising an Administration Order so their rent is paid and

they are not evicted is required’. However this requires that a worker has the skills to make

an assessment and an understanding of how to apply for an Administration Order.

Kathy is not alone in this observation. Jasmin Underwood, Rooming House worker for the

Peninsula Community Legal Centre (PCLC) stated that almost all of the tenants she comes

across are in need of support of some kind. Jasmin visits rooming houses to assist people

with any tenancy issues they may have and encourages tenants to know their rights. The

interesting thing to note is that out of all the people Jasmin talks to, many with significant

tenancy issues, only a small percentage actually lodge a formal complaint against a landlord.

‘People are too scared to complain, because of the fear of the landlord retaliating and

asking them to leave’.

Issues around safety, cleanliness and security are all areas that agencies mentioned when

being interviewed about improvements for a rooming house. ‘Some rooming houses are

absolutely disgusting’ one housing worker commented with another suggesting having a

manager on site dealing with the day to day issues. ‘Having a manager onsite to manage

issues is something that rooming house owners should consider. The wages of someone

(not a lead tenant) could cost them less in the long run.’ The issue of managers or lead

tenants had a mixed response, four agencies brought up the need for rooming houses to be

managed while one organisation felt having a lead tenant ‘just seemed to pass some of the

responsibility from owner to lead tenant’ and caused more problems than solutions.

Training for rooming house owners was another area agencies felt could improve rooming

houses. Training in areas of legal responsibilities for owners, conflict resolution and working

with vulnerable people were all skills agencies felt owners needed. One housing services

coordinator mentioned that a rooming house operator had contacted their service to see if

they would train him in how to make an assessment of whether a person was suitable or not

for living in his rooming house. The service refused feeling that as a non-profit, client

focussed service they did not have a responsibility to educate a private business owner on

how to manage their customers. ‘They [private rooming house owners] are running a

business so it is their responsibility to determine what tenants they do or do not want’ We

are a housing agency- our responsibility is to find accommodation for vulnerable people, not

vet their clients for them’ (housing agency coordinator).

On the whole agencies identified there needs to be more work done in and around rooming

houses. ‘People are far too vulnerable to be in rooming houses, but where else can we put

them?’ said Lizette McCasker, Coordinator of PYFS Crisis Centre, Frankston. Unanimously

workers felt having crisis accommodation and more affordable housing would greatly

improve the options for people who find themselves homeless and in a crisis but until then

resources and supports need to be developed.

of 24

The table below identifies needs workers from of agencies that work with rooming houses

brought up during interview. These were not needs identified on a questionnaire but needs

that workers brought up spontaneously.

REFERRALS INTO ROOMING HOUSES

Knowing that the referral process for getting into a rooming house has always been an issue,

part of this project attempted to develop a referral system that would facilitate better client

placement and rooming house owner expectations. Working with a local rooming house

proprietor PYFS developed a simple referral tool.

A system was also developed for workers to be advised when vacancies became available

and at which rooming houses. Criteria was also developed for prospective tenants and

assisted in clarifying expectations and in turn helped workers to refer clients appropriately.

The criteria were as follows:-

1. Able to sustain independent living

2. Prospective tenant does not present substance affected

3. Prospective tenant understands the Rooming House costs and requirements

4. Prospective tenant is aware of location of Rooming House and can get there

independently

5. Prospective tenant does not present with unacceptable behavioural issues that may

indicate potential problems for other tenants at Rooming House.

It is important to note that workers are only responsible to assess the behaviour of their

client at the time of assessment and do not take any responsibility for behaviour after

referral is made. A referral form is emailed to the private rooming house owner and the

client arranges to meet and view the property.

A system was also put into place whereby if a tenant had support needs then the private

rooming house proprietor would advise the relevant agency of these needs. Assisting

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Gender specificHouses

Referralprocesseddeveloped

Manager on site Training forOwners

Support workerfor rooming

houses

Agency Identified Needs for Rooming Houses

of 24

clients to maintain their housing by providing support overcomes the need to keep spending

resources on rehousing clients and improves housing outcomes.

Though this process was developed it was not always easy to maintain because of time

restraints for workers and owners. However, a better working relationship and ongoing

communication has been established between the referring agency and the private rooming

house proprietor which has benefitted all parties. Ongoing work will need to be done to see

the processes developed further and embedded into practice of both workers and owners.

TENANT OUTCOMES FROM PROJECT

As the support worker continued to visit the rooming houses, engagement increased. It was

clear that the social interaction and emotional support by the sharing of time and the

preparation and supplying of a meal by the rooming house worker were important factors in

the positive outcome of this research. As a result tenants were able to be referred and

linked into formal supports. The following table shows the number of tenants assisted.

Need/Issue No. People

Support with housing issues 6

Support with health issues 2 Referrals to other agencies/supports

Employment 2

Volunteering 2

Legal 1 Private rental accessed 3

RECOMMENDATIONS

SUPPORT WORKER

Across all people interviewed, it is clear that support is needed for people living in a rooming

house. A worker to regularly visit, establish relationships and provide linkages to existing

services. Tenants wanted a worker to help them connect to long term accommodation

solutions and support services. Owners wanted support for challenging tenants who they

knew needed assistance. Agencies wanted communication between services and a

coordinated care plan for clients living in rooming houses.

TRAINING FOR OWNERS

Of the tenants and agencies interviewed, there was a repeated theme that training for the

owners of private rooming houses was required in the following areas:

Working with vulnerable people

Conflict resolution

Legislation and Safety Requirements for Rooming Houses

Discussions around whether the local council could provide short workshops to owners on

the above areas with guest speakers from the Tenants Union, Consumer Affairs and Mental

of 24

Health agencies would be relatively inexpensive and local. Motivations for owners to attend

could be that they are free and incentives such as a rate discount could be explored.

FURTHER RESEARCH

As the project progressed it became clear that more significant research into the support

needs of people living in a rooming house was necessary. As rooming houses continue to

increase in numbers, research into the long term effects of rooming houses on community

and individuals would assist in developing programs and supports.

CONCLUSION

In the current economic and political environment rooming houses provide a much needed

accommodation option for people in crisis and/or low income earners. Developing support

systems, referral processes and best practice standards are preventative measures that will

ensure rooming houses are safe places for tenants, owners, agencies and the general

community. Tenants, owners and agencies are each vital components to effective and

sustainable practice as rooming houses continue to be used to house vulnerable people.

.

Assisting clients to maintain their housing by providing support overcomes

the need to keep spending resources on rehousing clients and improves

housing outcomes.

of 24

REFERENCES

Consumer Affairs Victoria. (2012). Rooming Houses- A guide for residents and operators.

Melbourne: Consumer Affairs Victoria.

Residential Accommodation Association of Victoria. (2013). Running a better rooming

house: A best practice handbook for operators Melbourne: Residential Accommodation

Association of Victoria.

Wadsworth, Yoland. (2011). Do It Yourself Social Research (3rd ed.). Victoria: Allen & Unwin.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, P., Hume, A., Rogers, N. & Stephenson, T. (2000). It’s no palace: boarding houses, the

sector, its clientele and its future, Department of Human Services South Australia, Adelaide.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Methodological review of counting the homeless 2006, Cat. No. 2050.0.55.001, ABS, Canberra.

Chamberlain, C. (1999). Counting the homeless: implications for policy development, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat. No. 2041.0, Canberra.

Chamberlain, C. & MacKenzie, D. (2008). Counting the homeless 2006, Australian Bureau of

Statistics, Cat. No. 2050.0, Canberra.

Davidson, A., Phibbs, P. & Cox, G. (1998). Inner Sydney boarding house report, Urban and Regional Planning Program, University of Sydney, Sydney.

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008). The road

home: a national approach to reducing homelessness, FaHCSIA, Canberra.

Department of Human Services Victoria (2011). Proposed residential tenancies (rooming house standards) regulations, DHS, Melbourne.

Everard, N 2008, I Require Medical Asistance, Royal District Nursing Service, Melbourne

Greenhalgh, E., Miller, A., Minnery, J., Gurran, N., Jacobs & Phibbs, P. (2004). Boarding houses and government supply side intervention, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne.

Jope, S. (2000). On the threshold: the future of private rooming houses in the City of Yarra, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.

Kliger, B. (2003). Rooms for the future: a strategy and action plan for the retention and

development of socially responsible private rooming houses, Inner Urban Rooming House Project, Melbourne.

National Shelter (2000). National overview of boarding houses in Australia, National Shelter, Sydney.

Reid, J. & McDonald, C. (2010). I Need Connection, City Life, Frankston Victoria Reid, J., Griffin, J. & Murdoch, F. (2005). ‘Services for people experiencing homelessness’, in

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s welfare 2005, AIHW, cat. no. AUS 65, Canberra.

of 24

Rooming House Standards Taskforce (2009). Chairperson’s report, Victorian Government, Melbourne.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1- Project Goals, Objectives and Plan

Appendix 2 – Rooming House Schedule

Appendix 3 – Owner Questionnaire

Appendix 4 - Tenant Questionnaire

of 24

APPENDIX 1 ROOMING HOUSE PROJECT

Project Goal: Project with Mornington Shire Council and PYFS to investigate potential model for referring clients appropriately to rooming house owners and the potential to link services involved with individual clients providing support while in rooming house.

Objective Specific Action Measurable Time Frame

Snapshot of Rooming Houses: The history in M’ton Shire, what they actually are and who lives in them

Brief history and explanation of what they are

Gather available information on Rooming Houses

Short brief included in report

Dec 13

Who lives in them- Demographics of people living in Rooming Houses- Age, Gender, Health, Income, Issues of Vulnerability

Gather, collate and document

Data info in report Dec 13

Different Types of Rooming Houses Women Only, Men Only, Families, Over 55’s, Private General, Agency Run

Interview different owners/managers

Questionnaire created and Interview data collection reported to committee

Jan – Feb 14

Where are they How many do we have in the Mornington Shire Council municipality? Registered and Unregistered

Meet with MPS Data included in report Jan 14

Organisations involved with Rooming Houses and those that refer Local Council, Housing Agencies, Police, Mental Health Agencies, Health Professionals

Meet with different agencies

Data collected and key issues and common themes identified

Throughout project

Identify the Issues around Rooming Houses

Identify issues for rooming house For Clients, Owners, Community, Agencies, Councils

Meet with various stakeholders and document issues identified by them

Data collected and key issues and common themes identified

Ongoing

Models Identify current models of rooming houses – particularly ones that are working well for both residents and operators

Gather, collate and document short brief on models

Pilot model identified and agreed up by committee

March 14

Referral Document and Develop Referral Processes Document current process and for referring to rooming houses Identify more effective processes and develop them

Identify current referrals, from interviews create new referral process, trial process and evaluate

Referral processed developed

March 14

Support Opportunities Identify support opportunities for both clients and operators

Create list of support agencies

March/April/May

Evaluation Evaluate project and results through client, stakeholder and partner feedback.

Discuss with steering committee evaluation objectives and processes

Report to PYFS and partners project outcomes

June 2014

of 24

APPENDIX 2

ROOMING HOUSE VISIT SCHEDULE

Date Food Agency Activity People Fed/Talked to

House 1 House 2

12//02/14 Sandwiches PYFS

Pine Cottage only- Initial Visit and Questionnarres done

13

5/03/2014 Sandwiches PYFS

Maysbury only- Initial Visit and Questionnarres done

5

19/03/2014 Hot Dogs PYFS Casual chatting 8 5

2/04/2014 Baked Potatoes PYFS Casual chatting 7 6

30/04/2014

Soup

PYFS & Simon from Seawinds

Simon from Seawinds came and spoke with people

7 5

14/05/2014 Pizzas

PYFS & Jeff Philps

Jeff came and spoke about breakfast

8 4

28/05/2014 Rolls PYFS

Casual chatting and advertising the Focus Groups

8 4

4/06/2014

Lunch at Seawinds

PYFS Focus Group for House 1 9

11/06/2014

Lunch at Seawinds

PYFS Focus Group for House2 6

25/06/2014 Burritos PYFS Casual chatting 10 6

of 24

APPENDIX 3

ROOMING HOUSE TENANT QUESTIONARRE

Thank you for taking time to do this survey for us. We want to find out the good and bad points of living in a rooming house. We will use this information to help us come up with ways we can work with rooming house operators and agencies that refer people into rooming houses to improve the process and standards of rooming houses.

How long have you lived in a Rooming House?

How did find out about the Rooming House?

What is the best part about living in a Rooming House?

What are some of the bad parts about living in a Rooming House?

How would you do to improve the bad parts of living in a Rooming House?

Are there areas in your life you feel you need support in?

Managing Finances

Material Aide- Clothing, Bedding, toiletries

Community linkages- getting involved in the community

Appointment support- getting to appointments

Legal Support

Employment

Physical Health

Mental Health

Other Comments:

OPTIONAL (this data will help us identify what people may need for support)

Gender: Age:

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander

Yes No Marital Status: Single Married/Defacto

Do you have children? Yes No Do your children live with you?

Yes No

Income Source:

Newstart Disability Support Pension Aged Pension Other Pension

Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Casual Work NONE

Health Issues:

Mental Health Drug & Alcohol Diabetes Heart Problems

Other (Please list health issues that may affect living in a rooming house for example: mobility, special diet, taking medication)

Are you currently receiving support for any of the following agencies?

Peninsula Youth and Family Services (PYFS)

Community Information and Support

MI Health

Peninsula Health

Breaking the Cycle

Peninsula Support Services

Other: (please list)

Women’s Integrated Service

Job Service Network

Department of Justice

St Vinnies

Salvation Army

Anglicare

WAYSS- Domestic Violence Unit

WAYSS

Local Church

VACA

Centrelink Social Worker

List Any Others:

of 24

APPENDIX 4

ROOMING HOUSE OWNER QUESTIONARRE

Thank you for taking time to do this survey for us. We want to find out the good and bad points of living in a rooming house. We will use this information to help us come up with ways we can work with rooming house operators and agencies that refer people into rooming houses to improve the process and standards of rooming houses.

How long have you been involved in Rooming Houses?

How many Rooming Houses do you have?

List Houses and number of people in each house:

Do you have a manager or lead tenant for each property? Yes No

Why or why not? If you do have a manager how does it work? Does he live on site? How does he report to you and what does he report?

What is the best part about owning in a Rooming House?

What is the worst part of owning a Rooming House?

What supports could help improve your Rooming House?

Are there areas do you feel you need support in?

Dealing with Difficult People

Tenancy Laws

Community Connection

Legal Support

Administration

Other (please list)

Other Comments:

Do you have couples? Yes No Do you have children in your rooming houses?

Yes No

What is main source of income for you tenants?

Newstart Disability Support Pension Aged Pension Other Pension

Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Casual Work NONE

Are there Health Issues you notice about your tenants?

Mental Health Drug & Alcohol Diabetes Heart Problems

Other (Please list health issues that may affect living in a rooming house for example: mobility, special diet, taking medication)

Do you relate to any of the following agencies?

Peninsula Youth and Family Services (PYFS)

Community Information and Support

MI Health

Peninsula Health

Breaking the Cycle

Peninsula Support Services

Other: (please list)

Women’s Integrated Service

Job Service Network

Department of Justice

St Vinnies

Salvation Army

Anglicare

WAYSS- Domestic Violence Unit

WAYSS

Local Church

VACA

Centrelink Social Worker

List Any Others:

making connections- report on rooming house project-final

Documents