Clients in regional and remote areas

Access to services can become increasingly difficult the further away a client is from a major city. This section examines differences in client characteristics and service needs according to location. Similar to previous reports, for the purposes of the analysis, clients have been classified by geographical area based on the location of the agency from which they first received assistance in 2014–15. Agencies have been classified by geographical area based on the Australian Statistical Geography Standard [1] using the location details of each agency.

Clients by geographic area: trends over time

Since the beginning of the Specialist Homelessness Services collection in 2011–12 there has been a steady increase in the number of clients across most geographic areas. The collection continues to reveal differences in client characteristics and service needs across these areas. Some key regional changes over the 4 years since the collection began have been:

  • Taking into account population differences, Remote/Very remote areas consistently reported the highest rate of homelessness service use. These areas also showed the largest growth in the rate of service use, increasing by an average of 6.1% each year.
  • The proportion of Indigenous clients in both the Outer regional and Remote/Very remote areas increased each year; in 2014–15 5 in 10 and 9 in 10 clients identified as Indigenous in these areas respectively.
  • Domestic and family violence was the main reason why people sought assistance in all regional areas and has remained so over the 4 years of the collection.

Table 1: Clients by geographic area: at a glance—trends over time

Year   Major cities Inner regional Outer regional Remote/ Very remote
Number of clients (proportion of all clients)
2014–15   162,286 (63%) 52,061 (20%) 28,257 (11%) 13,053 (5%)
2013–14   159,877 (63%) 55,510 (22%) 26,785 (11%) 11,831 (5%)
2012–13   151,255 (62%) 54,547 (22%) 26,693 (11%) 11,682 (5%)
2011–12   144,710 (61%) 53,694 (23%) 27,379 (12%) 10,647 (5%)
Rate (per 10,000 population)
2014–15   98 122 136 245
2013–14   98 132 130 222
2012–13   95 131 130 222
2011–12   92 131 135 206
Indigenous status
2014–15 Indigenous 14% 21% 48% 89%
  Non-Indigenous 86% 79% 52% 11%
2013–14 Indigenous 14% 21% 47% 87%
  Non-Indigenous 86% 79% 53% 13%
2012–13 Indigenous 14% 21% 45% 81%
  Non-Indigenous 86% 79% 55% 19%
2011–12 Indigenous 13% 20% 43% 80%
  Non-Indigenous 87% 80% 57% 20%
Living arrangement
2014–15 Lone person 31% 27% 25% 16%
  Sole parent 33% 37% 35% 24%
  Couple with child/ren 13% 13% 17% 18%
  Couple without children 5% 6% 6% 6%
  Other family group 18% 17% 18% 36%
2013–14 Lone person 32% 28% 28% 15%
  Sole parent 33% 35% 35% 25%
  Couple with child/ren 12% 14% 14% 19%
  Couple without children 5% 6% 6% 7%
  Other family group 17% 18% 17% 34%
2012–13 Lone person 34% 29% 28% 19%
  Sole parent 30% 33% 33% 24%
  Couple with child/ren 12% 14% 15% 17%
  Couple without children 5% 6% 6% 7%
  Other family group 18% 18% 18% 33%
2011–12 Lone person 34% 27% 27% 18%
  Sole parent 30% 34% 33% 26%
  Couple with child/ren 12% 14% 15% 18%
  Couple without children 5% 6% 6% 7%
  Other family group 19% 19% 19% 31%
Main reason for seeking assistance (Top 4)
2014–15 Domestic and family violence 25% 23% 25% 34%
  Housing crisis 21% 21% 22% 11%
  Financial difficulties 12% 16% 8% 9%
  Inadequate or inappropriate
dwelling conditions
10% 10% 11% 10%
2013–14 Domestic and family violence 24% 23% 22% *35%
  Housing crisis 17% 14% 15% 8%
  Financial difficulties 15% 17% 13% *9%
  Inadequate or inappropriate
dwelling conditions
11% 12% 15% *13%
2012–13 Domestic and family violence 22% 23% 21% 37%
  Housing crisis 16% 12% 16% 7%
  Financial difficulties 15% 21% 12% 11%
  Inadequate or inappropriate
dwelling conditions
10% 11% 15% 8%
2011–12 Domestic and family violence 25% 25% 20% 39%
  Housing crisis 14% 12% 12% 6%
  Financial difficulties 16% 14% 17% 11%
  Inadequate or inappropriate
dwelling conditions
8% 11% 13% 9%
Housing situation at the beginning of first support period (all clients)
2014–15 Homeless: At risk of homelessness 45%: 55% 42%: 58% 43%: 57% 29%: 71%
2013–14 Homeless: At risk of homelessness *42%: 58% *41%: 59% *46%: 54% 34%: 66%
2012–13 Homeless: At risk of homelessness *43%: 57% *41%: 59% *50%: 50% *36%: 64%
2011–12 Homeless: At risk of homelessness 41%; 59% 40%: 60% 46%: 54% 35%:65%
Proportion receiving accommodation (median (nights))
2014–15   31% (48) 29% (35) 41% (21) 58% (5)
2013–14   32% (49) 29% (38) 44% (20) 63% (6)
2012–13   35% (45) 30% (35) 45% (22) 65% (6)
2011–12   34% (48) 32% (34) 41% (21) 67% (7)
Number of support periods (average per client)
2014–15   273,256 (1.7) 80,073 (1.5) 41,700 (1.5) 19,182 (1.5)
2013–14   263,720 (1.6) 82,889 (1.5) 38,884 (1.5) 16,770 (1.4)
2012–13   251,763 (1.7) 80,378 (1.5) 37,955 (1.4) 17,019 (1.5)
2011–12   216,744 (1.5) 74,961 (1.4) 38,009 (1.4) 13,980 (1.3)
Average (median) length of support (days)
2014–15   79 (32) 72 (39) 72 (36) 64 (17)
2013–14   83 (31) 81 (42) 71 (31) 72 (21)
2012–13   89 (31) 79 (36) 75 (32) 74 (17)
2011–12   86 (30) 74 (33) 64 (22) 64 (15)
Proportion of a client group who had a case management plan
2014–15   58% 61% 73% 62%
2013–14   *55% *62% *65% *66%
2012–13   *53% *57% *64% *59%
2011–12   55% 57% 61% 60%
Achievement of all case management goals
2014–15   27% 18% 30% 29%
2013–14   *27% *16% *21% *27%
2012–13   26% 15% 19% 21%
2011–12   24% 16% 22% 23%

Notes

  1. Rates are crude rates based on the Australian estimated resident population (ERP) at 30 June of the reference year.

  2. * Indicates where previously published data have been revised to ensure consistent reporting over time. 2011–12 data were revised in December 2013 but not previously reported in this format.

  3. 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 national supplementary table.

Source: Specialist homelessness services Annual Reports 2011–12, 2012–13, 2013–14 and 2014–15.

In 2014–15 changes occurred in the way agencies are required to report 'main reason' and 'reasons for seeking assistance'. Comparisons over time should be made with caution as the reporting of housing crisis, financial difficulties and housing affordability stress may be inconsistent between agencies. See Technical information for further details.

  • In 2014–15 a large proportion of clients accessing specialist homelessness services lived in Major cities (63%). This is slightly lower than for the broader Australian population, 70% of whom live in Major cities (AIHW analysis of the ABS 2011 Census).
  • Some client groups were more likely to access specialist homelessness services in Major cities. For example, in 2014–15 70% of SHS clients with a current mental health issue and 87% of SHS clients born overseas accessed specialist homelessness services in Major cities.
  • A higher proportion of clients of homelessness services in 2014–15 were located in Remote/Very remote areas (5%) compared with the general population (2%). Almost 9 in 10 clients in Remote/Very remote areas were Indigenous (89%).
  • The proportion of clients living in Remote/Very remote areas who were homeless upon presentation decreased from 34% in 2013–14 to 29% in 2014–15 (Table 1).
  • Accommodation length varied considerably across regional areas. In 2014–15 over half of the clients in Major cities received 48 or more nights accommodation while less than half of the clients in Remote/Very remote areas received 5 or fewer nights.

Age and sex

About 1 in 4 clients

in Remote/Very remote areas were children under the age of 10.

  • In all remoteness areas, there were more females than male clients (Figure REG.1). The proportion of females increased as remoteness increased. Females represented 59% of clients in Major cities compared with 66% of clients in Remote/Very remote areas.
  • Clients aged between 25 and 34 represented the largest proportion across Major cities and Inner regional areas (18%, 20%, respectively) but clients aged between 0–9 represented the largest proportion in both Outer regional and Remote/Very remote areas (20%, 24%, respectively).
  • The proportion of younger children (aged 0–9) generally increased with remoteness: from 15% of clients in Major cities to 24% of clients in Remote/Very remote areas.
  • Together these data suggest that in Remote/Very remote areas there were higher proportions of families presenting with children compared with Major cities while the proportion of lone persons was higher in Major cities.

Figure REG.1: Clients, by remoteness area and by age and sex, 2014–15

Figure REG.1: Clients, by remoteness area and by age and sex, 2014–15. The population pyramid shows that outer regional, and remote and very remote areas had a higher proportion of SHS clients aged 0–9. Additionally, males aged 25–34 were less likely to be in remote and very remote areas, however, the opposite was true for female clients.

Source: Specialist homelessness services 2014–15, National supplementary table REG.1 (702KB XLS).

Services needed and provided

57%

of clients accessing agencies located in Remote/Very remote areas required short-term or emergency accommodation.

  • The likelihood of receiving accommodation decreased as remoteness decreased, with clients accessing agencies in Major cities and Inner regional areas the least likely to receive accommodation (59% and 51%, respectively) while those clients in Remote/Very remote areas with accommodation needs the most likely to have them met (87%).
  • Clients accessing agencies located in Remote/Very remote areas were assessed with more needs compared with clients in other areas (Figure REG.2).
  • Trends for clients accessing services in Inner regional areas were generally similar to those in Major cities. However, a higher proportion of clients accessing services in Inner regional areas were likely to need long-term housing (39% compared with 32% in Major cities).
  • Clients accessing services in Major cities were more likely to be assessed as needing mental health services (8%) than those in any other region (between 2% and 7%).

Figure REG.2: Most needed services by remoteness area, 2014–15

Figure REG.2: Clients Most needed services by remoteness area, by most needed services, 2014–15. The bar graph shows clients in outer regional, and remote and very remote areas were more likely to require assistance for short-term or emergency accommodation, but less likely to need medium-term/transitional housing and long-term housing. For general services, those in outer regional, and remote and very remote areas were more likely to require assistance for transport, laundry/shower facilities and meals.

Note: Most needed excludes 'Other basic assistance'.

Source: Specialist homelessness services 2014–15, National supplementary table REG.3 (702KB XLS).

Housing outcomes

  • Clients accessing services in Major cities were the least likely to report ending support in stable housing (65%), with most living in private or other housing as a renter or rent free (44%) (Figure REG.3).
  • Inner regional clients were the most likely to be housed in private or other housing at the end of their support period (49%).
  • Those clients accessing agencies in Remote/Very remote areas were more likely to report living in public or community housing (60%) at the beginning of their support period. These clients were also the most likely to be classified as housed at the end of their support period (75%).

Figure REG.3: Clients with closed support, by remoteness area and housing situation at beginning of support and at end of support, 2014–15

Figure REG.3: Clients with closed support , by remoteness area and housing situation at beginning of support and at end of support, 2014–15. The bar graph shows that 60%25 of clients from remote and very remote areas first reported a housing situation in public or community housing, compared with approximately 10%25 of clients from major cities. Clients in remote and very remote areas were also much less likely to report living in private or other housing.

Source: Specialist homelessness services 2014–15, National supplementary table REG.4 (702KB XLS).


Reference

  1. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2013. Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): Volume 5—Remoteness structure, July 2011. ABS cat. no. 1270.0.55.005. Canberra: ABS.