Service geography

On this page

Key findings: Clients of SHS agencies, by remoteness area, 2020–21

This diagram highlights a number of key findings concerning service geography. Most clients were supported by services in major cities. The rate of SHS clients in remote/very remote areas was 3.9 times higher than in major cities. The median nights of accommodation was highest in major cities. The proportion of accommodation requests met was highest in remote/very remote areas. Family and domestic violence was the most common main reason for seeking support in remote/very remote areas. Outer regional areas had the highest proportion of clients who were homeless.

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.

Reporting service location in the Specialist Homelessness Services Collection (SHSC)

This section examines client service needs and characteristics based on the location of the SHS agency, where the service was received, that is, the profile of clients receiving support as provided by services in specific areas. Clients can access services in more than one remoteness area, however, for the purpose of the analysis, clients are assigned to one remoteness area based on the SHS agency where they first sought support in 2020–21. The 2016 Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) (ABS 2018) is used to classify agencies by remoteness area based on the location details of each agency (see Technical information).

State-wide SHS operate in some states/territories and can assist a high number of clients over the phone. Therefore, service location data may not be accurate or relevant for some clients.

In interpreting regional service trends throughout this section, ‘urban areas’ refer to Major cities and Inner and Outer regional areas and ‘remote areas’ refer to Remote and Very remote areas, unless otherwise stated.

Specialist homelessness services across urban and remote areas

In 2020–21, clients receiving assistance from SHS agencies in urban and remote areas had different characteristics:

  • The proportion of clients (with known housing situation) who were homeless upon presentation was lower among the clients receiving support from services in Remote areas (27%) compared with Major cities (44%) (Supplementary table REG.5).
  • The median length of accommodation received by clients of services in Major cities was 48 nights, compared with 5 nights in Remote areas (Supplementary table REG.6).
  • More than 9 in 10 clients (92%) receiving services in Remote and Very remote areas identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and 1 in 5 (20%) were 0–9 years of age (Supplementary tables INDIGENOUS.5 and REG.2).
  • Almost 9 in 10 (86%) SHS clients born overseas received support from SHS agencies located in Major cities (Supplementary table CLIENTS.6).
  • Of those clients with a current mental health issue (around 88,200 clients), almost 2 in 3 (65%) received support from SHS agencies in Major cities and around 1 in 4 (26%) in Inner regional areas (Supplementary table CLIENTS.42).
  • The most common main reasons clients sought assistance in the various 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 26% respectively) and housing crisis (20% and 19% respectively).
    • Remote and Very remote areas: family and domestic violence (34%) and inadequate or inappropriate dwelling conditions (9.3%).

Figure REG.1: Service use patterns for SHS clients by remoteness area, 2016–17 to 2020–21

This interactive horizontal bar graph shows services needed by provision status and by remoteness area. Long term housing was the most needed service in major cities and inner regional areas and the least provided. Short term or emergency accommodation was the most commonly provided across remoteness areas.

Some key geographically based service trends between 2016–17 and 2020–21 (Figure REG.2) include:

  • Taking into account population differences, agencies in Remote areas consistently had the highest rate of SHS clients. The rate of SHS clients receiving services located in Remote/Very Remote areas was 3.9 times higher than in Major cities in 2020–21, up from 2.7 times in 2016–17.
  • Over the period, SHS support in Major cities provided accommodation to 3 in 5 clients each year (61%). This was higher than the proportion of clients provided with accommodation in Remote/Very remote areas (around 5%).

Services needed and provided

In 2020–21 (Figure REG.2, Supplementary table REG.4):

  • The need for short-term or emergency accommodation was highest for clients of SHS agencies in more remote areas: Major cities 36%, Inner regional areas 43%, Outer regional areas 45%, and Remote and very remote areas 59%.
  • Around half of clients of Inner regional services (52%) needed long-term housing compared with 37% in Major cities.
  • Nine in 10 (90%) requests for accommodation were met by services in Remote and very remote areas, while clients of services in Major cities and Inner regional areas were less likely to receive accommodation (54% and 38% provided, respectively).
    • Referral rates for accommodation provision were lowest in Remote and very remote areas (3.0%) compared with all other remoteness areas (Outer regional 14%; Inner regional 17%; Major cities 17%).
    • Clients in Remote and very remote areas were more likely to receive short-term or emergency accommodation (94%) than those in Major cities (62%) and Inner regional (46%) areas.
    • Need for mental health services was higher among clients of services in Major cities (10%) and Inner regional areas (8.0%) than those in Outer regional areas (6.2%) and Remote and very remote areas (3.4%).

Figure REG.2: Clients by services needed, by provision status, by remoteness area, 2020–21

This interactive horizontal bar graph shows services needed by provision status and by remoteness area. Long term housing was the most needed service in major cities and inner regional areas and the least provided. Short term or emergency accommodation was the most commonly provided across remoteness areas.

Outcomes at the end of support

Outcomes presented here describe the change in clients’ housing situation between the start and end of support during 2020–21. 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 2020–21. 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 2020–21 is compared with the end of their last support period in 2020–21. A proportion of these clients may have sought assistance prior to 2020–21, and may again in the future.

  • Clients of Major cities services (46%) were the most likely to be housed in private or other housing at the end of support.
  • Clients of Inner regional areas were most likely to improve their housing situation following SHS assistance with 66% housed at the end of support, 13 percentage points higher from the beginning of support.
  • Clients accessing services in Outer regional areas were the least likely to end support in housing (including institutions) (64%), noting that this group also had a similar proportion presenting to SHS experiencing homelessness (45%) as clients in Major cities (44%) and Inner regional areas (47%).
  • Clients accessing agencies in Remote and very remote areas were more likely to report living in public or community housing (63%) at the beginning of their support. The majority of clients (77%) were in housing at the end of support.

Figure REG.3: Clients with closed support, by remoteness area, by housing situation at the beginning and end of support, 2020–21

This interactive Sankey diagram shows the housing situation (including rough sleeping, couch surfing, short term accommodation, public/community housing, private housing and institutional settings) of clients with closed support periods at first presentation and at the end of support, by remoteness area. The diagram shows clients’ housing situation journey from start to end of support. Most clients started and ended support in private or other housing.

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.