A place to call home

Social housing is especially critical for people with complex needs, such as those living with mental illness or substance abuse issues, who may otherwise have limited accommodation options due to barriers such as low income, discrimination in the private rental market, and behavioural problems resulting from their complex needs.

This is particularly apparent in Queensland, where, due to a range of government policies, the proportion of social housing tenancies allocated to special and priority-needs households is much higher than in other states and territories.

While social housing is often the only accommodation option left for people with complex needs, a policy introduced by the Queensland Government in 2013 meant that those same needs could have led to the tenants being evicted from their homes.

Under the Anti-Social Behaviour Management Policy, otherwise known as the ‘three strikes’ policy, social housing tenants could be issued with strikes for certain behaviours, such as excessive noise, not keeping their property clean and tidy, deliberate minor damage to their property, and other actions that could threaten the safety of their neighbours or other tenants. If a household received three strikes within a 12-month period, or one strike for dangerous or severe activity, their tenancy could be terminated.

Concerned about the possible implications of the policy on tenants with complex needs, the Queensland Mental Health Commission engaged UQ’s Institute for Social Science Research (ISSR) in early 2014 to review the systemic issues faced by these tenants, examine the potential and actual effects of the three strikes policy for these tenants, and explore what other approaches may be available.

The findings and recommendations from ISSR’s research were illuminating, resulting in significant policy reform with positive implications not only for social housing tenants in Queensland but also for their neighbours and the broader community.

As a result of ISSR’s findings and recommendations, which were used as the evidence base for the Queensland Mental Health Commission’s first ordinary report into social housing in Queensland, the Anti-Social Behaviour Management Policy was replaced earlier this year with the Fair Expectation of Behaviour Policy, which aims to balance the rights of tenants, neighbours, service partners, department staff and the community while offering additional support to social housing tenants with complex needs or mental health issues.

Under the new policy, tenants receive warnings rather than strikes for disruptive behaviour, and are contacted following each warning to ensure they understand the consequences of their behaviour, their obligations under their tenancy agreement, and how they can reduce the risk to their tenancy. They are also offered support to help them meet their tenancy responsibilities.

While repeated incidents of disruptive behaviour or severe or dangerous behaviour may still lead to tenancy agreements being terminated, Dr Parsell says that under the new policy, tenants with complex needs are much more likely to be provided with support to sustain their tenancy.

“Whereas before, the behaviours that presented put people's tenancies at risk, now, in light of our research, those tenants – when they present with those behaviours – are much more likely to be supported and have a holistic response to their underlying mental illness or addiction,” he says.

“This can have an extremely positive effect on the lives of vulnerable tenants, whereby they are able to sustain housing and get easier access to health and other clinical support services that they need.”

Dr Parsell says the benefits of the research also extend to the broader community.

“The impact is also beneficial for the neighbours of tenants, who rightly expect to have neighbourhoods that are peaceful and quiet, and not feel intimidated.

In 2017, the Mental Health Commission engaged KPMG to evaluate the policy change process associated with this social housing reform.

KPMG’s subsequent report identified ISSR’s research as one of three key drivers of the policy change, due to the quality of the research, the credibility of ISSR, and the fact that we combined large-scale quantitative analyses of administrative data with representative qualitative case-studies.

The others were genuine collaboration among the different stakeholders, and the independent role of the Commission.

The next area the research team is exploring is how tenants with complex needs can be supported through neighbourhood and informal and family networks rather than formal support systems.

“We know very little about how informal networks can provide more efficient and effective responses to tenants in the absence of formal support services from the government or community organisations,” Dr Parsell explains.

“We really want to understand how tenants can be supported in the absence of formal support systems, and how wellbeing and positive life trajectory can be realised for people who are vulnerable in a way where social service provision isn’t the dominant force in their lives.”

“The ISSR has been able to contribute significantly to the policy discussion, as unlike the health and medical fields, many of the funded social service interventions lack a rigorous empirical evidence base to substantiate impact.”