Specialist homelessness services annual report 2019-20

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 geographical distribution of SHS support services provided across Australia, based on the location of the agency.

Specialist homelessness services across urban and remote areas

In 2019–20, clients seeking assistance from SHS agencies in urban and remote areas displayed distinct characteristics:

• The proportion of people who were homeless upon presentation was lower among the clients receiving support from services in Remote areas (28%) compared with Major cities (44%) (Table REG.5).
• The median length of accommodation received by clients of services in Major cities was 39 nights, compared with 4 nights in Remote areas (Table REG.2).
• Over 9 in 10 clients (93%) seeking services in Remote or Very remote areas identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Supplementary table INDIGENOUS.5).
• Almost 9 in 10 (86%) SHS clients born overseas were located in Major cities (Supplementary table CLIENTS.6).
• Of those clients with a current mental health issue (around 88,300 clients), almost 2 in 3 (65%) presented to agencies for assistance in Major cities (Supplementary table MH.11).
• The most common main reasons clients sought assistance across Remoteness Areas (Supplementary table REG.1) were:
  • Major cities: family and domestic violence (30%), followed by housing crisis (18%).
  • Inner and Outer regional areas: family and domestic violence (27% and 24% respectively) and housing crisis (17% and 20% respectively).
  • Remote areas: family and domestic violence (34%) and time out from family/other situation (8%).

Trends over time

Some key geographically based service trends between 2015–16 and 2019–20 (Table REG.1 and Table REG.2) include:

• 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/Very Remote areas was 3.5 times higher than in Major cities in 2019–20, up from 2.6 times in 2015–16.
• Over the period, SHS support in Remote areas provided accommodation to 3 in 5 clients each year (60%). This was higher than the proportion of clients provided with accommodation in urban areas (around 30%).

Table REG.1: Clients by agency geographic area—2015–16 to 2019–20

Year		Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote/ Very remote
Number of clients (proportion (per cent) of all clients)
2019–20	Number	175,726	66,597	31,629	16,510
	Per cent	60	23	11	6
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
Rate (per 10,000 population)
2019–20		95.9	148.0	153.9	339.3
2018–19		98.1	152.1	154.4	298.2
2017–18		101.5	149.6	148.2	275.4
2016–17		103.5	148.9	149.1	277.4
2015–16		103.4	138.6	147.8	273.4

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. Previous years’ data can be found in the 2018-19 Specialist Homelessness Services Annual report.
3. Data for 2015–16 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 2015–16 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 2015–16 to 2019–20.

Table REG.2: Clients by agency geographic area: service use patterns—2015–16 to 2019–20

Year		Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote/ Very remote
Length of support (median number of days)
2019–20		42	58	38	15
2018–19		40	58	40	19
2017–18		35	53	39	20
2016–17		34	46	37	20
2015–16		33	41	36	17
Average number of support periods per client
2019–20		1.9	1.6	1.6	1.6
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
Proportion receiving accommodation
2019–20		29	23	32	60
2018–19		28	25	33	63
2017–18		27	25	36	62
2016–17		28	25	37	59
2015–16		29	27	39	62
Median number of nights accommodated
2019–20		39	35	21	4
2018–19		40	33	24	5
2017–18		46	34	23	5
2016–17		48	31	24	5
2015–16		48	34	23	5

Services needed and provided

In 2019–20 (Figure REG.1; Supplementary Table REG.4):

• The proportion of clients needing short-term or emergency accommodation was highest for services in more remote areas: Major cities 36%, Inner regional areas 38%, Outer regional areas 44%, and Remote/Very remote areas 60%.
• Just under half of clients of Inner regional services (47%) needed long-term housing compared with 38% in Major cities.
• Nearly 9 in 10 (89%) 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 38% of services provided, respectively).
  • Referral rates for accommodation were lowest in Remote/Very remote areas (3%) compared with all other areas (15% to 18%).
• Clients in Remote and Very remote areas were more likely to receive short-term or emergency accommodation (93%) than those in Major cities (58%) and Inner regional (47%) areas.
• Need for mental health services was higher among clients of services in Major cities (11% or over 19,100 clients) and Inner regional areas (9% or over 6,200 clients) than those in Outer regional areas (7% or nearly 2,300 clients) and remote/very remote areas (4% or around 700 clients).

Figure REG.1: Clients by most needed services, by remoteness area, 2019–20

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 2019–20, 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 2019–20. Data are 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 2019–20. 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 2019–20 is compared with the end of their last support period in 2019–20. A proportion of these clients may have sought assistance prior to 2019–20, and may again in the future (Table REG.3).

• Clients accessing services in Outer regional areas were the least likely to end support in housing (including institutions) (66%), noting that this group also had the a similar proportion presenting to SHS experiencing homelessness (44%) as clients in Major cities (44%) and Inner regional areas (43%).
• Clients of Inner regional services were the most likely to be housed in private or other housing following support (49%). They were also the most likely to improve their housing situation following SHS assistance with 70% housed at the end of support, up 13 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 (62%) at the beginning of their support. The majority of clients (76%) were in housing at the end of support.

Table REG.3: Clients with closed support, by Remoteness Area, by housing situation at the beginning and end of support, 2019–20

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	11,333	6,169	10.2	5.7
Short term temporary accommodation	20,287	18,105	18.2	16.7
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	17,044	11,027	15.3	10.2
Total homeless	48,664	35,301	43.6	32.6
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	11,941	18,039	10.7	16.6
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	46,519	51,802	41.7	47.8
Institutional settings	4,438	3,281	4.0	3.0
Total at risk	62,898	73,122	56.4	67.4
Total clients with known housing situation	111,562	108,423	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	21,880	25,019
Total clients	133,442	133,442
Inner regional
No shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling	4,359	2,683	10.0	6.3
Short term temporary accommodation	5,989	4,469	13.8	10.6
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	8,391	5,556	19.3	13.1
Total homeless	18,739	12,708	43.1	30.0
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	5,150	8,033	11.8	19.0
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	17,995	20,526	41.3	48.5
Institutional settings	1,638	1,062	3.8	2.5
Total at risk	24,783	29,621	56.9	70.0
Total clients with known housing situation	43,522	42,329	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	7,007	8,200
Total clients	50,529	50,529
Outer regional
No shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling	2,166	1,205	9.6	5.5
Short term temporary accommodation	3,100	3,020	13.7	13.7
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	4,596	3,231	20.4	14.7
Total homeless	9,862	7,456	43.7	33.8
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	4,095	5,449	18.1	24.7
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	7,837	8,519	34.7	38.6
Institutional settings	783	623	3.5	2.8
Total at risk	12,715	14,591	56.3	66.2
Total clients with known housing situation	22,577	22,047	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	2,258	2,788
Total clients	24,835	24,835
Remote and very remote
No shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling	407	227	3.6	2.0
Short term temporary accommodation	1,569	1,515	13.8	13.5
House, townhouse or flat - couch surfer or with no tenure	1,213	999	10.7	8.9
Total homeless	3,189	2,741	28.1	24.4
Public or community housing - renter or rent free	6,985	7,122	61.6	63.5
Private or other housing - renter, rent free or owner	1,023	1,222	9.0	10.9
Institutional settings	146	135	1.3	1.2
Total at risk	8,154	8,479	71.9	75.6
Total clients with known housing situation	11,343	11,220	100.0	100.0
Not stated/other	2,498	2,621
Total clients	13,841	13,841

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 and Supplementary table REG.5):

• Most clients in Major cities (38,000 clients or 64%) were in private housing.
• Most clients in Inner regional areas (14,600 clients or 62%) were in private housing.
• Most clients in Outer regional areas (6,200 clients or 51%) were in private housing, with an additional 27% (3,300 clients) in public or community housing.
• Most clients in Remote or Very remote areas (6,100 clients or 77%) 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: 13,400 clients (31%) were in short-term accommodation.
• In Inner regional areas: 4,500 clients (26%) were in private housing and another 4,500 clients were couch surfing.
• In Outer regional areas: 2,700 clients (29%) were couch surfing.
• In Remote and Very remote areas: 980 clients (33%) were in short-term accommodation.

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. Canberra: PC.