Specialist Homelessness Services annual report 2018–19

Access to services can become increasingly difficult the further away a client is from a major city (ABS 2018). For Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS), state and territory systems for the assessment, intake, referral and ongoing case management of SHS clients vary, ranging from agency-based to centralised management models (PC 2019). This section provides an overview of the geography of SHS support services provided across Australia based on the location of the agency. 

Specialist homelessness services across urban and remote areas

In 2018–19, clients seeking assistance from SHS agencies in urban and remote areas displayed distinct characteristics:

• Of those clients with a current mental health issue (around 86,500 clients), almost 2 in 3 (65%) presented to agencies for assistance in Major cities (Supplementary table MH.10).
• Almost 9 in 10 (87%) SHS clients born overseas received services from agencies located in Major cities (Supplementary table CLIENTS.5).
• Over 9 in 10 clients (92%) seeking services in remote areas identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Supplementary table INDIGENOUS.5).
• The proportion of people who were homeless upon presentation was lower among the clients receiving support from services in remote areas (26%) compared with Major cities (43%) (Table REG.1).
• The median length of accommodation received by clients of services in Major cities was 40 nights, compared with 5 nights in remote areas (Table REG.1).
• The most common main reasons clients sought assistance across Remoteness Areas (Supplementary table REG.1) were:
  • Major cities: Family and domestic violence (29%), followed by housing crisis (21%).
  • Inner and Outer regional areas: Family and domestic violence (25% and 24% respectively) and housing crisis (19% and 21% respectively).  
  • Remote areas: Family and domestic violence (34%) and housing crisis (10%). One in 10 clients (10%) also listed inadequate or inappropriate dwelling conditions as the main reason for seeking assistance.

Trends over time

The SHS collection continues to reveal differences in client characteristics and service needs across Australia. Some key service trends between 2014–15 and 2018–19 (Table REG.1):

• Taking into account population differences, agencies in remote areas consistently reported the highest rate of SHS clients. The rate of SHS clients accessing services located in remote areas was 3.0 times higher than in Major cities in 2018–19, up from 2.6 times in 2014–15.
• Over this period, SHS support in remote areas provided accommodation to 3 in 5 clients each year (around 60%). This was higher than the proportion of clients provided with accommodation in urban areas (around 30%).
• Agencies in Inner regional areas had the largest average annual growth in client numbers and the rate of service use (7% and 6% respectively) since 2014–15.

Table REG.1: Clients by agency geographic area: at a glance—2014–15 to 2018–19

Year		Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote/very remote
Number of clients (proportion (per cent) of all clients)
2018–19	Number	176,507	67,607	31,676	14,527
	Per cent	61	23	11	5
2017–18	Number	179,323	65,671	30,352	13,449
	Per cent	62	23	11	5
2016–17	Number	178,197	65,330	31,131	13,614
	Per cent	62	23	11	5
2015–16	Number	174,744	60,013	30,790	13,650
	Per cent	63	21	11	5
2014–15	Number	162,286	52,061	28,257	13,053
	Per cent	63	20	11	5
Rate (per 10,000 population)
2018–19		98.0	152.1	154.3	295.5
2017–18		101.5	149.6	148.2	273.0
2016–17		103.5	148.9	149.1	272.2
2015–16		103.4	138.6	147.8	268.4
2014–15		97.7	121.6	136.1	252.6
Housing situation at the beginning of first support period (proportion (per cent) of all clients)
2018–19	Homeless	43	42	44	26
	At risk of homelessness	57	58	56	74
2017–18	Homeless	44	43	44	28
	At risk of homelessness	56	57	56	72
2016–17	Homeless	46	43	42	27
	At risk of homelessness	54	57	58	73
2015–16	Homeless	45	43	43	27
	At risk of homelessness	55	57	57	73
2014–15	Homeless	45	41	43	29
	At risk of homelessness	55	59	57	71
Length of support (median number of days)
2018–19		40	58	40	19
2017–18		35	53	39	20
2016–17		34	46	37	20
2015–16		33	41	36	17
2014–15		32	39	36	17
Average number of support periods per client
2018–19		1.8	1.6	1.5	1.6
2017–18		1.8	1.6	1.5	1.6
2016–17		1.8	1.6	1.5	1.6
2015–16		1.7	1.6	1.5	1.5
2014–15		1.7	1.5	1.5	1.5
Proportion receiving accommodation
2018–19		28	25	33	63
2017–18		27	25	36	62
2016–17		28	25	37	59
2015–16		29	27	39	62
2014–15		31	29	41	58
Median number of nights accommodated
2018–19		40	33	24	5
2017–18		46	34	23	5
2016–17		48	31	24	5
2015–16		48	34	23	5
2014–15		48	35	21	5
Proportion of a client group who had a case management plan (per cent)
2018–19		63	67	78	56
2017–18		60	66	77	65
2016–17		59	64	74	64
2015–16		59	61	75	60
2014–15		58	61	73	62
Achievement of all case management goals (per cent)
2018–19		25	17	36	25
2017–18		25	17	34	24
2016–17		25	16	27	23
2015–16		24	16	31	27
2014–15		27	18	30	29

Notes

1. Rates are crude rates based on the Australian estimated resident population (ERP) at 30 June of the reference year. Minor adjustments in rates may occur between publications reflecting revision of the estimated resident population by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
2. The denominator for the proportion achieving all case management goals is the number of client groups with a case management plan. Denominator values for proportions are provided in the relevant supplementary table.
3. Previous years’ data can be found in the 2017–18 Specialist Homelessness Services Annual report.
4. Data for 2014–15 to 2016–17 have been adjusted for non-response. Due to improvements in the rates of agency participation and SLK validity, data from 2017–18 are not weighted. The removal of weighting does not constitute a break in time series and weighted data from 2014–15 to 2016–17 are comparable with unweighted data for 2017–18 onwards. For further information, please refer to the Technical Notes.

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Collection 2014–15 to 2018–19.

Services needed and provided

In 2018–19 (Figure REG.1):

• The proportion of clients needing short-term or emergency accommodation was highest for services in more remote areas: Major cities 36%, Inner regional areas 39%, Outer regional areas 41%, and Remote/Very remote areas 64%.
• Just under half of clients of Inner regional services (46%) needed long-term housing compared with 37% in Major cities.
• Nearly 9 in 10 (87%) requests for accommodation were met by services in remote areas, while clients of services in Major cities and Inner regional areas were less likely to receive accommodation (51% and 41% of need met, respectively).
  • Outer regional areas had the highest proportion of clients referred to other agencies after identifying a need for accommodation services (18% or almost 3,500 clients).
• Clients in Remote and Very remote areas were more likely to receive short-term or emergency accommodation (92%) than those in Major cities (56%) and Inner regional (49%) areas.
• Need for mental health services was higher among clients of services in Major cities (10% or over 18,200 clients) and Inner regional areas (9% or over 5,900 clients) than those in Outer regional areas (6% or over 2,000 clients) and Remote and Very remote areas (4% or around 500 clients).

Figure REG.1: Clients by most needed services, by remoteness area, 2018–19

Notes

1. Most needed excludes 'General services', ‘Other basic assistance’, ‘Advice/information’, and ‘Advocacy/liaison on behalf of client’.
2. Short-term accommodation includes temporary and emergency accommodation; medium-term housing includes transitional housing; and sustain tenancy/prevent eviction includes assistance to sustain tenancy or prevent tenancy failure or eviction.
3. Proportions have been calculated using the client count for each remoteness area as the denominator.

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Collection 2018–19, Supplementary table REG.4.

Outcomes at the end of support

Outcomes presented here describe the change in clients’ housing situation between the start and end of support during 2018–19. Data is limited to clients who ceased receiving support during the financial year—meaning that their support periods had closed and they did not have ongoing support at the end of the year.

Many clients had long periods of support or even multiple support periods during 2018–19. They may have had a number of changes in their housing situation over the course of their support. These changes within the year are not reflected in the data presented here, rather the client situation at the start of their first support period in 2018–19 is compared with the end of their last support period in 2018–19. A proportion of these clients may have sought assistance prior to 2018–19, and may again in the future (Table REG.2).

• Clients accessing services in Outer regional areas were the least likely to end support in housing (66%), noting that this group also had the highest proportion presenting to SHS experiencing homelessness (45%).
• Clients of Inner regional services were the most likely to be housed in private or other housing following support (48%). They were also the most likely to improve their housing situation following SHS assistance with 70% housed at the end of support, up 14 percentage points from the beginning of support.
• Clients accessing agencies in Remote and Very remote areas were more likely to report living in public or community housing (66%) at the beginning of their support. The majority of clients (78%) were in housing at the end of support.

Table REG.2: Clients with closed support, by Remoteness Area, by housing situation at the beginning and end of support, 2018–19 

Housing situation	Beginning of support (number)	End of support (number)	Beginning of support (per cent)	End of support (per cent)
Major cities
No shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling	11,677	6,717	10.3	6.1
Short term temporary accommodation	20,420	18,059	18.0	16.4
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	17,505	11,913	15.4	10.8
Total homeless	49,602	36,689	43.7	33.4
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	12,329	18,497	10.9	16.8
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	46,894	51,337	41.3	46.7
Institutional settings	4,643	3,420	4.1	3.1
Total at risk	63,866	73,254	56.3	66.6
Total clients with known housing situation	113,468	109,943	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	22,607	26,132
Total clients	136,075	136,075
Inner regional
No shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling	4,548	2,745	10.3	6.4
Short term temporary accommodation	5,687	4,393	12.8	10.2
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	9,173	5,948	20.7	13.8
Total homeless	19,408	13,086	43.9	30.3
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	4,920	8,321	11.1	19.3
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	18,150	20,579	41.0	47.6
Institutional settings	1,780	1,221	4.0	2.8
Total at risk	24,850	30,121	56.1	69.7
Total clients with known housing situation	44,258	43,207	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	7,343	8,394
Total clients	51,601	51,601
Outer regional
No shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling	2,431	1,342	10.6	6.0
Short term temporary accommodation	3,400	3,089	14.8	13.8
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	4,528	3,108	19.7	13.9
Total homeless	10,359	7,539	45.1	33.7
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	3,745	5,404	16.3	24.2
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	8,029	8,799	35.0	39.4
Institutional settings	817	611	3.6	2.7
Total at risk	12,591	14,814	54.9	66.3
Total clients with known housing situation	22,950	22,353	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	2,065	2,662
Total clients	25,015	25,015
Remote and Very remote
No shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling	448	233	4.5	2.3
Short term temporary accommodation	937	1,010	9.3	10.1
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	1,076	953	10.7	9.5
Total homeless	2,461	2,196	24.5	21.9
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	6,602	6,755	65.8	67.5
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	823	942	8.2	9.4
Institutional settings	148	119	1.5	1.2
Total at risk	7,573	7,816	75.5	78.1
Total clients with known housing situation	10,034	10,012	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	1,623	1,645
Total clients	11,657	11,657

Notes

1. Percentages have been calculated using total number of clients as the denominator (less not stated/other).
2. It is important to note that individual clients beginning support in one housing type need not necessarily be the same individuals ending support in that housing type.
3. Not stated/other includes those clients whose housing situation at either the beginning or end of support was unknown. Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Collection. Supplementary table REG.5.

Housing outcomes for homeless versus at risk clients

For clients with a known housing status who were at risk of homelessness at the start of support, by the end of support (Interactive Tableau visualisation):

• Most clients in Major cities (39,100 clients or 65%) were in private housing.
• Most clients in Inner regional areas (15,000 clients or 64%) were in private housing.
• Most clients in Outer regional areas (6,800 clients or 56%) were in private housing, with an additional 30% (3,600 clients) in public or community housing.
• Most clients in Remote or Very remote areas (5,900 clients or 81%) were in public or community housing.

For clients who were known to be homeless at the start of support, at the end of support:

• In Major cities: 13,300 clients (30%) were in short term accommodation.
• In Inner regional areas: 4,600 clients (26%) were in private housing.
• In Outer regional areas: 2,600 clients (27%) were couch surfing.
• In Remote and Very remote areas: 700 clients (30%) remained couch surfing.

References

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2018. Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness structure, July 2016. ABS cat. no. 1270.0.55.005. Canberra: ABS.

PC (Productivity Commission) 2019. Report of Government Services 2019: Part G, Section 19: Homelessness Services. Viewed September 2019.