The Future of the Community Housing Sector Survey

1
The Future of the Community Housing Sector Survey
Final Report
12 Nov 07
2
The following Survey was conducted by Lateral
Learning Systems on behalf of QCHC. The purpose
of the survey was to

• Assess the Sectors views of the effectiveness
  Government policies implemented and proposed
  particularly One Social Housing
• Provide foundation information for conducting a
  Future of the Sector Conference in November, 2007
• Provide material for media releases commencing in
  mid October and leading up to the Conference
• Assist in the gaining a Manifesto for future
  operations for Queensland Community Housing
  Coalition
• Assess providers views on the need for government
  to support a peak that is chosen by the sector.

3
The Methodology used was as follows

• Survey
• The survey was based on the Brief by the
  Executive Director and the QCHC Board of
  Directors. Three key areas and ten sub areas of
  each key area have been identified. The sub areas
  were reframed as a positively worded question.
• Key Areas
• Policy for a Positive Future
• Current policy contribution to a positive future
• Improved Housing Response
• Assistance in Coverage /increased need for
  housing
• Fair Funding
• Adequacy of Funding
• Resourcing

4
The Methodology used was as follows

• Survey
• Key Areas (Continued)
• Representation
• Relationships and Communication
• General

5
The Methodology used was as follows

• Survey
• Each question is framed as a positive statement
  with a small percentage framed negatively
• A five scale rating and comments have been used
  to assess quantitative and qualitative responses
  to the statement. Some scales were inverted to
  ensure respondents were thinking about their
  answers
• The QCHC Board of Management reviewed the survey
  questions before publishing
• The survey was passed to Bonds Ethics committee
  for approval and comment. Initial comments were
  received and incorporated into the survey. An
  application was not finalised due to time
  constraints.
• The Survey results and analysis was reviewed by
  Dr Mark Spence, Associate Professor, Marketing of
  Bond University

6
The Methodology used was as follows

• Distribution
• The Survey was distributed to all Community
  Housing Providers held on QCHCs database using
  Online and Hard Copy methods
• Analysis
• The results of the survey will be compiled and
  analysed first for themes and sub themes and then
  analysed by grouping responses to enable thematic
  summaries to be developed.
• The interpretation of those results will be
  defined by the Community Housing Providers
  attending the Future of the Sector Conference in
  November 2007

7
A Guide to Initial Interpretation

• All questions have been written in plain English
  and although responses appear to be clear in
  their meaning a range of reasons may have
  determined the answers. (Conference Attendees
  will be asked to provide further clarification to
  the responses collected.)
• All responses are important!
• Responses can be broadly categorised as
• Agree, Disagree or Neutral
• Neutral responses could occur for the following
  reasons The respondent
• Did not know the answer to the question
• Was unsure of the question or how to respond to
  it
• Was neutral in their opinion
• Did not wish to respond to the question

8
Survey Statistics
The total population of 367 Community Housing
Organisations received invitations either by
email or by hard copy. A total of 119 Surveys
were completed representing 32.4 of the total
population. 38 surveys were completed On line
while another 81 Surveys were received as hard
copy. 13 Surveys were only partially completed.
The size of the response is considered
significant and results should be viewed as
representative of the total population.
9
Q. 1 Is the size of your organisation ...
68.9 of Organisations completing the survey
were Small 22.7 of Organisations completing
the survey were Medium in size 8.4 of
Organisations completing the survey were Large
10
Q. 2 Where is your organisation located? Please
Choose...
Far North Queensland 10.1 West Queensland
5.1 Northwest Queensland 1.7
Central Queensland 21.9 North Queensland
12.6 South West Queensland 10.9
South East
Queensland 37.8
11
Q. 3 Please choose one of the following. Is the
location of your Organisation...
The split between Urban and Rural organisation
were Urban 55.5 Rural 44.
12
Summary Results Policy for a Positive
FutureCurrent Contribution to a Positive Future
Averaged Response for Q4 to 7
46.0 of Organisations Disagreed 33.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 21.0 of
Organisations Agreed
13
Q. 4 The State Governments One Social Housing
policy establishes the environment for a positive
future for Community Housing.
43.6 of Organisations Disagreed 30.8 of
Organisations were Neutral 25.6 of
Organisations Agreed
14
Q. 5 The State Governments One Social Housing
policy will help build the capacity and
capability of Community Housing providers.
47.1 of Organisations Disagreed 31.6 of
Organisations were Neutral 21.3 of
Organisations Agreed
15
Q. 6 The State Governments One Social Housing
policy will aid Community Housing providers to
expand.
47.8 of Organisations Disagreed 35.7 of
Organisations were Neutral 16.5 of
Organisations Agreed
16
Q. 7 The State Governments One Social Housing
System will deliver better housing outcomes than
the distinct Community Housing and Public Housing
policies of 1996 2006
45.2 of Organisations Disagreed 33.9 of
Organisations were Neutral 20.9 of
Organisations Agreed
17
Summary Results Policy for a Positive
FutureImproved Housing Response Averaged
Response for Q8 to 10
62.0 of Organisations Disagreed 26.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 12.0 of
Organisations Agreed
18
Q. 8 The State Government's One Social Housing
System will mean that Community Housing Providers
can respond more effectively to emerging housing
needs.
57.7 of Organisations Disagreed 25.9 of
Organisations were Neutral 16.4 of
Organisations Agreed
19
Q. 9 The State Government's One Social Housing
System will improve Community Housing Providers
capacity to respond more effectively to complex
housing needs.
57.7 of Organisations Disagreed 25.9 of
Organisations were Neutral 16.4 of
Organisations Agreed
20
Q. 10 The State Government's current One Social
Housing policy will lower homelessness.
70.4 of Organisations Disagreed 27.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 2.6 of
Organisations Agreed
21
Summary Results Policy for a Positive
FutureAssistance in coverage / Increased need
for Housing Averaged Response Q11 to 14
65.0 of Organisations Disagreed 26.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 9.0 of
Organisations Agreed
22
Q. 11 The State Government will ensure that the
supply of social housing keeps pace with
increased demand.
63.5 of Organisations Disagreed 27.8 of
Organisations were Neutral 8.7 of
Organisations Agreed
23
Q. 12 The State Government's One Social Housing
System will enable Community Housing Providers to
create new partnership with the private sector
and local governments to supply more affordable
housing.
39.7 of Organisations Disagreed 44.3 of
Organisations were Neutral 16.0 of
Organisations Agreed
24
Q. 13 The State Governments One Social Housing
policy will ensure housing needs in all regions
will be met.
72.6 of Organisations Disagreed 19.8 of
Organisations were Neutral 7.6 of
Organisations Agreed
25
Q. 14 The level of State Government funding for
community housing is adequate to meet housing
need.
85.6 of Organisations Disagreed 9.6 of
Organisations were Neutral 4.8 of
Organisations Agreed
26
Summary Results Fare FundingAdequacy of
Funding Averaged Response Q15 to 19
70.0 of Organisations Disagreed 22.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 7.0 of
Organisations Agreed
27
Q. 15 The level of Commonwealth Government
funding for social housing in Queensland is
adequate to meet housing need.
85.7 of Organisations Disagreed 10.5 of
Organisations were Neutral 3.8 of
Organisations Agreed
28
Q. 16 The level of State Government funding for
community housing over the last ten years has
kept pace with increased demand.
85.6 of Organisations Disagreed 10.6 of
Organisations were Neutral 3.8 of
Organisations Agreed
29
Q. 17 State Government funding for each Community
Housing dwelling is sufficient to meet tenancy
and property management costs.
60.9 of Organisations Disagreed 26.7 of
Organisations were Neutral 12.4 of
Organisations Agreed
30
Q. 18 Community Housing Providers can meet the
full cost of Regulation and Accreditation from
their existing income.
62.9 of Organisations Disagreed 25.7 of
Organisations were Neutral 11.4 of
Organisations Agreed
31
Q. 19 Community Housing Providers get a fair
share of overall social housing funding in
Queensland.
59.5 of Organisations Disagreed 33.9 of
Organisations were Neutral 6.6 of
Organisations Agreed
32
Summary Results Fare FundingResources
Averaged Response Q20 to 23
35.0 of Organisations Disagreed 27.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 38.0 of
Organisations Agreed
33
Q. 20 The State Government is considering
whether to employ Community Housing Resource
Workers directly in the Department of Housing
Area Office rather than in the community sector'.
If the Government does directly employ Community
Housing Resource Workers it will strengthen the
partnership between the sector and government and
lead to better housing outcomes.
55.7 of Organisations Disagreed 31.1 of
Organisations were Neutral 13.2 of
Organisations Agreed
34
Q. 21 The burden of Regulation, Accreditation and
Red-Tape diverts Community Housing Providers
resources away from client service delivery.
15.1 of Organisations Disagreed 13.2 of
Organisations were Neutral 71.7 of
Organisations Agreed
35
Q. 22 Regulation and Accreditation is the best
way to increase efficiency in operations.
29.5 of Organisations Disagreed 41.9 of
Organisations were Neutral 28.6 of
Organisations Agreed
36
Q. 23 The level of resourcing to the community
housing sector is adequate to maintain
organisational viability and service quality into
the future.
61.9 of Organisations Disagreed 26.7 of
Organisations were Neutral 11.4 of
Organisations Agreed
37
Control and Representation
38
Q. 24 State Government policies to control the
building, purchasing and maintenance of community
housing properties will lead to greater
efficiency in property management.
51.4 of Organisations Disagreed 32.4 of
Organisations were Neutral 16.2 of
Organisations Agreed
39
Q. 25 The State Government should support a peak
body to represent and advocate for Community
Housing Providers that is chosen by Community
Housing Providers.
6.7 of Organisations Disagreed 9.6 of
Organisations were Neutral 83.7 of
Organisations Agreed
40
Q. 26 Across the world different bodies run
social housing, which of the following are best
placed to own and manage social housing.
4.9 of Organisations suggested the
Commonwealth Government 17.7 of
Organisations suggested the State Government
14.7 of Organisations suggested Local
Government 2.9 of Organisations suggested
Private Sector 62.7 of Organisations
suggested Community Housing Sector
41
Summary Results Communication and
Relationships Communication Averaged Response
Q27 Q29
54.0 of Organisations Disagreed 30.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 16.0 of
Organisations Agreed
42
Q. 27 Our organisation was able to adequately
contribute to the new One Social Housing policy.
44.7 of Organisations Disagreed 33.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 22.3 of
Organisations Agreed
43
Q. 28 The State Government Housing policy is
easily understood.
52.9 of Organisations Disagreed 25.5
of Organisations were Neutral 21.6 of
Organisations Agreed
44
Q. 29 The State Government's One Social Housing
System has been implemented through consultation
and genuine partnership with the community
housing sector.
56.7 of Organisations Disagreed 33.7
of Organisations were Neutral 9.6 of
Organisations Agreed
45
Summary Results Communication and
Relationships Relationships Averaged Response
Q27 Q32, Q36
57.0 of Organisations Disagreed 31.0 of
Organisations were Neutral 12.0 of
Organisations Agreed
46
Q. 30 The State Government and Community Housing
Sector share a common vision for the future of
social housing.
55.8 of Organisations Disagreed 29.8
of Organisations were Neutral 14.4 of
Organisations Agreed
47
Q. 31 The Community Housing sector has a high
level of confidence in the State Government
ability to assist them in providing housing.
71.2 of Organisations Disagreed 22.1
of Organisations were Neutral 6.7 of
Organisations Agreed
48
Q. 32 In considering how the State Government
relates to the community housing sector. The
State Government relates...
1.0 of Organisations said the Government
was very good at relating to providers 4.8
of Organisations said the Government was good at
relating to providers 42.3 of Organisations
said the Government was okay at relating to
providers 37.5 of Organisations said the
Government was poor at relating to providers
14.4 of Organisations said the Government was
very poor at relating to providers
49
Q. 33 Community Housing providers are willing to
work collaboratively with Government to gain the
best housing outcomes.
50
Q. 34 I would describe the relationship between
the community housing sector and government as
7.6 of Organisations said relationships
were very poor 33.3 of Organisations said
relationships were poor 45.7 of
Organisations said relationships were okay
11.4 of Organisations said relationships were
Good 1.9 of Organisations said
relationships were Very Good
51
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
29 Responses to Policy
48.0 of Organisations Agreed 46.0 of
Organisations were either unsure or did not
provide a clear choice 6.0 of Organisations
Disagreed
52
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
29 Responses to Funding
55.0 of Organisations Agree 34.0 of
Organisations were either unsure or did not
provide a clear response 10.0 of Organisations
Disagreed
53
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
26 Responses to Communication
69.0 of Organisations Agree 27.0 of
Organisations were either unsure or did not
provide a clear response 4.0 of Organisations
Disagreed
54
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
29 Responses to Relations
56.0 of Organisations Agree 34.0 of
Organisations were either unsure or did not
provide a clear response 10.0 of Organisations
Disagreed
55
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Policy A1. Agree A2.
No Comment A3. Agree A4. There is no
relationship now, so need to start somewhere.
A5. Complex needs definition resourcing
requirements. A6. Community Housing has a say
but isnt heard A7. No Comment
56
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Policy A8. Continue
collaboration and consultation A9. No
consultation that I am aware of A10. Unsure
about this aspect A11. Policy does not reflect
community values A12. More information, not
sure what it is you're after here. A13. no
comment A14. The above is a true statement.
Until our political masters realise that they and
the institutes of government are there to serve
the peoples needs there can be no positive change
57
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Policy A15. Yes need
review A16. Housing need is fluid and any
policy must reflect that essential quality A17
Around policy so we all have a common vision
A18. Can be improved A19. Simple - minimising
paperwork. which allows affordable housing
requires responsibilities from clients A20. We
do not consider that an independent review is
necessary and would be a time and waste.
58
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Policy A21. Yes - The
review will seek the gaps make recommendations
as long as it is independent A22. Continual
change makes it difficult for small
organisations. A23. Agree with the above
statement within the policy area A24. Is made
with no consideration of clients or services
supporting them. At no time in over a decade has
policy been written with such blatant disregard
for any other perspective other than government
and ministers. A25. Proper consultation was not
held. The outcomes required were too obvious.
59
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Policy A26. Yes A27.
This is why there is a need for peak body.
A28. Yes A29. Politically motivated A30.
Who's policy? It's not one that meets the
Community Housing Sector, but rather an
authoritarian government position dictating
changes without supporting a pathway to TRULY
collaborate. We don't know what the state
government wants us to do.
60
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Policy A31. Need an
independent org as peak body to represent in this
area A32. They are far better resourced to make
demands than we are resourced to respond. A33.
Perhaps an independent review might identify
opportunities for policy development that
actively seeks NPO input and not just pay this
input lip service. A34. Real partnerships are
based on respect, each valuing the other,
embracing difference. Communication is open and
transparent, there is equitable power.
Consultation is valued, resources are shared
fairly and openly. Secrets are OUT, different
opinions are sought and valued etc. A35. No
61
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Funding A1. Agree A2.
Agree A3. Not applicable A4. Complex needs
definition resourcing requirements. A5.
Inadequate A6. Only if we do what the
government wants A7. More of it A8. We have
been fortunate with funding.
62
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Funding A9. Mainstream
providers always want to carry out expensive
reviews instead of gov. just recognising good
practices of community housing providers and
letting them get on with the job A10.
Inadequate and an abyss - what is going on...
A11. This would be helpful A12. Funding must
increase A13. Fair but slow A14.
Insufficient A15. Need more...
63
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Funding A16. No knowledge
of what is available A17. Yes A18. Assistance
for additional housing would be appreciated.
A19. Agree with the above statement within the
funding area A20. No consultation exists to
identify the most urgent needs and to respond in
a planned and strategic manner. Decisions are
political, depend on who knows who and the
individual opinion of the decision maker of the
time. There is no sound process around
identifying need and responding to it. The
rhetoric remains sound however.
64
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Funding A21. Yes A22.
This is why there is a need for peak body. A23.
Yes A24. Government does not give enough A25.
Funding has been declining for the last ten years
and now we are a at a crisis point for affordable
community housing because governments have placed
trust in the private sector providing this.
A26. Peak body could represent small orgs to
keep abreast of the cost of providing housing and
for the funding to keep pace with this cost
65
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Funding A27. Its a thin
line ! Q-Build tell us that yes, they are
supposed to be doing maintenance on our
properties but they had something come up
unexpectedly this year so they won't be doing any
this year. A28. I agree with the statement
especially since the realities of running of a
viable NPO is not acknowledged by Govt. A29.
Review
66
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Communications A1.
Agree A2. Agree A3. Internal communication of
the DOH as well as organisational communications
is very poor. A4. One way street "Their way or
no way" A5. Visitations to area office and to
CRS offices in return A6. Most important
aspect-done very poorly in past 2 years. A7.
Completely disconnected and at times not
respectful enough
67
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Communications A8. Yes
A9. Poor communication especially with Minister
A10. Communication/consultation is perceived as
cursory and without significant impact on
decision making by Government A11. Lines of
communication between departmental
representatives on community groups and their
superiors needs to be transparent and two way.
A12. Can be improved A13. Open - minimise red
tape
68
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Communications A14. Not 2
way in regards to funding otherwise good A15.
Yes A16. Can be difficult when dealing with
changing bureaucracy A17. Agree with the above
statement within the Communications area A18.
Any consultation is by invitation and is not
holistic. The sector as a whole isn't welcome and
is deemed to have nothing to contribute.
Departmental workers are often condescending and
fail to recognise that a vast number of
professionals in the field are very educated yet
there is a climate of patronising and bullying
whenever questions are asked.
69
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Communications A19. Yes
A20. This is why there is a need for peak body.
A21. Yes A22. Exchange of ideas A23. This is
a one way street. Department of Housing issues a
statement, we try and guess what it means and if
we question the policy Department of Housing says
'its already in the policy'! They have never
TRULY asked the community housing sector's
opinion.
70
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Communications A24.
Again- a peak body is necessary to communicate
the needs of the service providers and the
difficulties they face. A25. A review would
probably highlight the myriad of different levels
of communication currently in place and possibly
offer some genuine and meaningful streamlining.
A26. Required
71
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Relations A1. Agree. A2.
Agree. A3. There is no relationship now, so
need to start somewhere. A4. All of the above
A5. Meetings in community and government
housing sector A6. Rebuild the old Com H Div
style of relationships A7. Never experienced
the like. Very poor and condescending in the lack
of respect given to the sector.
72
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Relations A8. Downturn in
relationships A9. As above A10. No
comment A11. Yes need review A12. See
comment on communications A13. Can be improved
A14. Can be improved
73
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Relations A15. The level
of relationship is not low. A16. Ok A17.
Yes A18. Strained at times. A19. Agree with
the above statement within the relations area
74
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Relations A20. Have never
been so negative. The Department has found a new
culture of elitism and exclusion. When I joined
this sector 12 years ago I enjoyed very civil and
professional relationships with departmental
staff and bureaucrats who were more than happy to
answer questions and resource the sector. That is
no longer the case. They send letters, respond
curtly to questions and bully and bully and
bully. In a private workplace, they would be up
on charges regularly! A21. Officers within the
Department are not in job long enough to know and
assist us. A22. Yes A23. This is why there is
a need for peak body.
75
Q 35 'Relationships between the Government and
Community Housing Sector have deteriorated to a
level that we need an Independent Review to
identify how we can improve relationships and
build a real partnership.' Please Comment on this
statement...
All answers apply to Relations A24. Yes A25.
Good rapport with Gov. Staff and Community Sector
A26. We have little faith in the Department of
Housing at the moment. A27. Peak body -
everyone else has one - makes sense to have a
body to improve and maintain relations between
Govt/ Comm Housing providers A28. An
independent review will not I believe resolve
relations issues - that must be done by
individuals from both sides of the table
exchanging in such a manner that encourages
honesty, co-operation and trust. A29. Required.
76
Q. 36 The State Government understands and values
the distinct contribution of the community
housing sector.
48.1 of Organisations Disagreed 29.8
of Organisations were Neutral 22.1 of
Organisations Agreed
77
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
Summary of Responses

• State Government
• Accreditation has been costly but worth it
• Small Rural Communities without Community Housing
  providers fall outside the State Government
  Policy
• Potential for long waiting periods for new
  accommodation units under the One Social Housing
  System
• Lack of reward or recognition by the State
  Government for good work done
• Maintenance costs for housing will increase under
  One Social Housing System (due to lack of
  community culture)
• Resourcing needed for multiple need clients and
  the disabled
• Resourcing needed for system changes (Waiting
  Lists)
• CRS properties cannot be included on the one
  common wait list or be bound by the allocation
  policy.

78
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
Summary of Responses

• State Government
• What happens when a tenant is rejected by the One
  Social Housing System?
• Not all providers are registered nor wish to be
  registered under the One Social Housing System
• The One Social Housing Framework could threaten
  Community Housing providers vision, mission and
  culture in a negative way
• Tenants Union and co-operatives need a voice
• Attended meetings re the One Social Housing
  consultations to find out that everything was
  already in place
• The State and Federal Governments are withholding
  funds to gain caveats over indigenous and youth
  properties
• The system of support (under the One Social
  Housing System) is very rule bound and inflexible
• When Peaks are funded by Government they are not
  in a good position to be a good representative
  for the Sector

79
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
Summary of Responses

• Local Government
• Local Government should not have to Subsidise
  housing
• Local and State Governments need to work together
  to address homelessness and transient lifestyles
  for adults with young children
• Community Housing Providers
• Potential loss of good people out of Community
  Housing due to the uncertainty of the sectors
  future
• Housing need is increasing as is the barriers to
  address the problems
• Rents are out of reach for the working poor.
  There are for the first time examples of two
  income families unable to find rental
  accommodation.

80
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A1. No A2. Local Government should not have to
subsidise State Government Housing - Maintenance
costs are far outweighing income (mostly due to
low income renters.) A3. Strongly disagree
with 1) No secure tenure 2) Highest need/
multiple need clients get housing but community
not resourced to deal with demand for services.
A4. Small Rural Communities that do not have a
Community Housing provider can not get in the
system to have their needs registered. Even if
Rural Communities need was recognised, the
numbers in urban centres is so large, rural needs
will not be addressed. Therefore rural families
in housing crisis have only one choice - move to
the coastal cities in the hope of getting on a
wait list. Effectively the rural need is
transferred to the coastal cities.
81
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A5. Equitable funding commitment between all
registered Community Housing Providers. Greater
acknowledgement of unmet housing and resourcing
needs for all people with disabilities. Greater
acknowledgement of the needs for advocacy for
specific target groups. A6. We believe
government wants to get rid of community housing
and that is proven by the latest decision. Not to
fund our voice i.e. QCHC confirms their attitude
towards community housing. We believe we "do it
better" and so that seems to be a threat instead
of a positive attitude towards the community
sector. We agree that the sector needs to have
regulations and standards to be accountable but
we dont agree to a total takeover which is what
we see happening.
82
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A7. 1. Accreditation process has been excellent
for us and expensive but worth every cent. All
organisations should be given more support to
undertake the process - it will make them better
operators resulting in better outcomes for all
stakeholders. 2. One Social Housing system of
constructing new dwellings is time and money
wasting. We construct new dwellings in 18months
from receiving funding to tenants moving in.
Under bureaucratic new system, government is
taking 3 yrs 6 mths-and would have been even
longer without our continuous prompting. 3.
Change over waiting list process was very time
consuming and labour intensive for our small
organisation of voluntary members. More support
should have been offered to complete this task.
83
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A8. It is felt that our organisation worked
hard for 32 years practicing good governance and
exceptional property/tenancy management, regarded
year after year with govt funding to now be
deemed not effective or efficient in our service
delivery. Is the govt going to contradict
themselves with our record? by changing tact to
say we don't offer value for money. It is a well
known fact that State Housing is not self
sufficient, we are, they only allocate 1 day per
month to manage their regional properties.
State Housing dwellings suffer more damages and
require govt funds for RM more so than Community
Houses that are managed at a local level. Our
Regional State Housing workers have in fact said
that they cannot cope with property tenancy
management from afar.
84
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A9. We have had one worker leave because they
have a mortgage and the ambiguity and threat of
impending loss of programs funding etc.. prompted
worker to take up another position even though
she loves it here. She is not the only one I
imagine. I too, with 15 years in the sector
have thought about leaving due to the total and
absolute lack of respect in the process, policy
and communications with the One Social Housing
system and communications coming down from the
minister. The communications from the minister
speak of his lack of regard for the sector. So
why should we continue to bust our arses. The
need is ever increasing and the barriers ever
more impeding. Absolutely damning. A.10 No
Comment
85
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A11. Funding levels in the Community Sector are
extremely low. It is impossible to achieve
accreditation within normal funding levels. Staff
dedicate their own time (and lots of it) to
achieve this. When peaks are funded by Government
bodies, they are not in a position to truly
represent organisations for fear of loss of
funding if the y go against policy. I think this
was particularly evident in the case of QCHC. I
don't believe any of the peaks represented the
sector well during the implementation of One
Social Housing for this reason. Minister
Schwarten needs to study international social
housing to see how over targeting creates a huge
range of social problems tenancy property
management problems.
86
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A12. Great respect for staff of local HQ office.
A13. CRS properties cannot be included on the
one common waitlist or be bound by the allocation
policy. We are paying high rents to private
landlords who are very efficient in keeping
vacancy rates to a minimum to protect viability
of organisations. The Department of Housing staff
have no concept of viability issue in the CRS
allocation process. A14. The One Social
Housing Policy will be a disaster it will a)
Lead to concentration of need in social housing
leading to increased social problems including
evictions b) Once people are thrown out of their
housing there will be nowhere else to go
87
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A15. The housing system clearly seems to be
endeavouring to house as few as possible. The
benchmarks are getting higher for eligibility.
This is an enormous issue given the cost of
housing and rent. For the first time in over a
decade people are referring to our agency who are
full time employed but on low incomes - sometimes
couples on 2 incomes who are unable to sustain
private tenancies. Very sad to see America's
working poor in Queensland. A16. A 'One size
fits all' will not work. Comments against
questions Q 11 - How? certainly not in the short
term Q 12 - In the long term - However on the
Atherton Tablelands the situation is critical. Q
20 - They will lose local perspective and I
believe come to represent DHQ more so than
regional interests. Q 29 - The message from the
Minister was very clear from the outset. Q 33 -
Do they/ we have a choice?
88
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A17. Strong networks and supports set up within
local area offices of Department of Housing
making accessing information and support more
helpful. A18. No - all covered - however - in
reference to the One Social Housing - not all
service providers in the community are registered
- not all wish to become registered and perhaps
there may be a need to explore why - although -
this may come to light when the Waiting List
comes in to play and accommodation providers may
experience difficulties - or then again - they
may not. It would be one area where I envisage
problems could arise. Then again - how long have
we been talking about the lack of accommodation
providers - how many more discussions/
consultations/ surveys need to take place before
something is 'actually' done.
89
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A19. The system of support is very rule-bound and
consequently inflexible around the needs that
often arise in particular properties. Also my
experience is that they don't want to take advice
on matters as soon as the discussion comes up
against one of the inflexibilities in old
programs. There are some disasters waiting to
happen that they don't want to acknowledge. The
community housing provides will be left to manage
the situation. A20. No Comment A21. Funding
levels in the Community Sector are extremely low.
It is impossible to achieve accreditation within
normal funding levels. Staff dedicate their own
time (and lots of it) to achieve this. When peaks
are funded by Government bodies, they are not in
a position to truly represent organisations for
fear of loss of funding if the y go against
policy.
90
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A21 (Cont.). I think this was particularly
evident in the case of QCHC. I don't believe any
of the peaks represented the sector well during
the implementation of One Social Housing for this
reason. Minister Schwarten needs to study
international social housing to see how over
targeting creates a huge range of social problems
tenancy property management problems. A22.
Why is Qld Housing and Commonwealth holding
Indigenous and Youth Housing Organisations to
ransom by withholding or withdrawing funding in
order to gain the caveats over the houses. A23.
I fail to see how one social housing system will
increase housing on the ground or opportunities
for people in greatest need of housing to receive
appropriate and adequate support to enable them
to achieve sustainable tenancies.
91
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A23 (Cont). This is a much bigger issue that
extends beyond the Dept of Housing and needs to
be recognised as essential if the whole
homelessness and transient living issue is ever
to be truly addressed. This means Local
government and the State departments have to work
on an all inclusive approach to finding housing
and life style solutions for adults and young
children. A24. Additional Comments For Q.21
Regulation and Accreditation are necessary but
need to be resourced For Q.26 There is a role for
each of these bodies (All levels of government
and the private sector) but social housing needs
to be owned/ managed by the Community
Sector. A25. Government needs to take a reality
check and to admit that Queensland is not the
Smart State. We have people dying, being killed,
committing suicide, committing all sorts of
substance abuse and generally losing the plot
because government lives in ga ga land.
92
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A26. We need to look at how community housing
providers can work with the funding bodies and
NOT within the rigidity of the OSHS framework. If
community housing providers are regulated and
delivering the 'same service' across the sector
we will all become 'managers of public housing'.
We will lose our individuality and will not be
working with our organisations culture, mission,
vision, values and strategic direction. There
needs to be a 'crossing of paths and flexibility'
and flexibility around decision making without
the funding body imposing or making all the
decisions for the service providers. A27.
Tenants unions co-operatives i.e. stakeholders
need more say, as they are the end consumer and
need a voice.
93
Q. 37 Are there any other policy, funding,
resourcing, or communication and consultation
aspects not discussed above that should be raised?
A28. The delays in referrals has cause some
frustration however we have communications to
improve this. A29. We attended meetings but
everything was already in place. Local
organisations have a deeper interest in their own
area committee the personal touch can be
complicated but long term is more efficient and
cost effective.
94
A Special Thanks is given to Bond University for
their support and assistance. Specific thanks
is given to
Dr. George Earl, Deputy Dean, Faculty of
Business, Technology and Sustainable Development
for his support and sponsorship of the
Conference. Dr. Mark Spence, Associate
Professor, Marketing for his assistance in
reviewing the Survey before it was published, for
conducting an analysis of results and presenting
the findings to the Conference.