Making Connections- Report on Rooming House project-final

of 24
MAKING CONNECTIONS
Making connections for residents residing in privately
run rooming houses

of 24
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to acknowledge the support and guidance of the following people and
organisations:
Firstly it is because of the eighteen tenants who participated in the project and gave
generously of their time and knowledge that this report was able to be produced. Due to
confidentiality they cannot be individually named but their input was greatly appreciated.
Marie McLaine, Judy Cooper and Peter Sibly as part of the project steering committee who had the
vision for the project and then instigated and resourced it to completion.
Robert Martin and the Salvation Army South East Services Network
Mornington Peninsula Shire for the grant to run this pilot project.
Sharon Allen, Chisholm TAFE Community Services Diploma student, who brought much needed
support to the project.
Tania Pozzer, a private rooming house operator who actively participated and encouraged the
processes of finding out what people need to improve their tenancy in rooming houses.
The many workers and agencies who gave insight and support for this project and continue to work
towards better standards for people living in rooming houses, particularly those mentioned below:
 Loretta Buckley- Peninsula Youth and Family Services
 Lizette McCasker- Peninsula Youth and Family Services
 Marc Westly- Housing for the Aged Action Group
 Alfred Morehu- WAYSS Rooming House Manager
 Jasmin Underwood – Peninsula Community Legal Centre
 Lyle Caulsen- Frankston City Council
 Kathy Rodis- RDNS Homeless Persons Program
 Jean Phillips, Margaret Oravecz and Catherine Oldsmeadow -MI Health
 Richard Casley- Private Rooming House Owner
It has been a great honour to work with tenants, owners and agencies and my hope is that
together we can continue to improve the accommodation options in the Mornington
Peninsula particularly for those who are most vulnerable.
Janet Reid
Project Officer
Oct 2014

of 24
TABLE OFCONTENTS
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................2
Introduction ...............................................................................................................................4
The Project- Goals and Objectives.............................................................................................4
Peninsula Youth & Family Services ............................................................................................4
Mornington Peninsula Shire ......................................................................................................5
History of the project.................................................................................................................5
What is a rooming house?..................................................................................................5
Mornington Peninsula Shire...............................................................................................6
Methodology..............................................................................................................................6
Initial interviews .................................................................................................................6
Rooming House visits .........................................................................................................6
Tenant Focus groups ..........................................................................................................7
Confidentiality ....................................................................................................................7
limitations-..........................................................................................................................7
What Tenants say about rooming houses .................................................................................7
Rooming House Visits.........................................................................................................9
Focus Groups....................................................................................................................10
What Owners say about rooming houses................................................................................11
What Agencies working with people living in rooming houses say.........................................13
Referrals into Rooming Houses ...............................................................................................16
Tenant Outcomes from Project ...............................................................................................17
Recommendations...................................................................................................................17
Support worker.................................................................................................................17
Training for Owners..........................................................................................................17
Further Research ..............................................................................................................18
Conclusion................................................................................................................................18
References ...............................................................................................................................19
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................19
Appendices...............................................................................................................................20
APPENDIX 1 ..........................................................................................................................21
APPENDIX 2 ..........................................................................................................................22
APPENDIX 3 ..........................................................................................................................23
APPENDIX 4 ..........................................................................................................................24

of 24
INTRODUCTION
Privately owned rooming houses in the Frankston and Mornington Peninsula areas are often
the only affordable accommodation option people have due to the lack of social,
community and public housing. Rooming house tenants often have high needs that include
mental health issues, poor employment prospects, negative tenancy history, lack of
connection to significant others or community supports, alcohol and substance addictions.
Tenancies in privately owned rooming houses frequently breakdown and tenants repeatedly
present at housing and homelessness services such as Peninsula Youth & Family Services for
assistance in accessing similar accommodation. Private rooming house owners often report
they are frustrated with their tenants because of their complex needs and difficult
behaviour and feel they need support in dealing with such vulnerable people. Consecutively,
the Mornington Peninsula Shire is concerned that private rooming houses meet minimum
standards and require they be registered to ensure the overall safety and welfare of
tenants.
To understand the issues around living in a private rooming house on the Mornington
Peninsula for residents and owners a six month project with Peninsula Youth and Family
Services (PYFS) and Mornington Peninsula Shire Council (MPS) was developed to investigate
a potential model to support rooming house tenants and rooming house owners.
THE PROJECT- GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
This project aimed to accomplish three main objectives:
 Identify issues from the tenant perspective around private rooming house living ,
available support services and connections to local community.
 Assess current referral processes and recommend improvements for referral to private
rooming houses to facilitate better tenant placement.
 Document a model of operation for private rooming house owners that provides a
positive living situation for both tenant and owner.
PENINSULA YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES
Peninsula Youth and Family Services support people who are homeless or at risk of
homelessness within Frankston and the Mornington Peninsula. PYFS provides assessment,
information, advocacy, support, and referral to a range of accommodation and housing
services that includes privately owned rooming houses. PYFS support a Rights Based
Approach which maintains that housing is a human right and that permanent housing is a
right and not a privilege. In 2013 PYFS assisted over 7,000 clients with housing related
issues. PYFS have been increasingly concerned that services such as homelessness services,
mental health providers, justice departments, police and other welfare organisations have
been referring people into privately run rooming houses without ongoing support or follow
up.

of 24
MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE
The Mornington Peninsula Shire has a long history of facilitating improved housing
outcomes for low income residents. The Shire has been a forerunner in developing
affordable, accessible and appropriate housing policy with organisations such as Women’s
Housing Ltd, Community Housing Limited, and the Department of Human Services. MPS has
witnessed the growth of registered and unregistered privately run rooming houses in the
wider metropolitan area and has reacted quickly to ensure that privately run rooming
houses on the Peninsula are registered. It is projected that the amount of private rooming
houses will continue to grow as a response to the increased demand for affordable housing.
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT
Since 2011 MPS and PYFS together with other local community service providers have been
meeting regularly through the Triple AAA Housing Group. The Triple AAA Housing has a
focus on Affordable, Accessible, Appropriate housing options for low income earners and
Centrelink recipients. During this time it has been noted that the support needs of people
living in privately owned rooming houses are not being addressed.
In early 2013, a private rooming house owner approached Mornington Peninsula Shire with
a concern for one of the tenant’s severe mental health issues. The owner recognised that
many residents had high needs and did not feel equipped to support them.
In conjunction, PYFS & MPS staff attended the National Housing Conference held in
Adelaide and viewed three different models of affordable housing for low income earners
and people who had experienced chronic housing issues. Each model provided ongoing
support to tenants and it was evident that each contributor to the model, (support workers,
volunteers, funded housing organisations and other interested parties) was committed to
ensuring tenants were holistically supported and as a result accommodation breakdowns
were almost non-existent.
From this PYFS and MPS recognised that pathways needed to be developed for tenants to
be provided with meaningful and consistent support services and linkages to the
community. A research worker who had experience in homelessness issues was employed
to investigate whether a model of support would improve outcomes for private rooming
house tenants.
WHAT IS A ROOMING HOUSE?
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1997, a rooming house is a building where:
 one or more rooms is available for rent, and
 the total number of people who may occupy those rooms is four or more
 residents usually have shared access to bathrooms, kitchens, laundries and living
areas
 the owner and their family generally do not live on the premises
 Different rental agreements are likely to exist for different residents.
(Consumer Affairs Victoria, 2012)

of 24
MORNINGTON PENINSULA SHIRE
In the Mornington Peninsula Shire there are
 4 privately owned registered rooming houses
 2 community housing run rooming houses
 5 rooming houses seeking registration
METHODOLOGY
Research was undertaken using the method of Participatory Action Research (PAR), a
process of social research that looks to improve a particular situation by working closely
with all who have a stake in the outcome. This method was used because it is particularly
suited to projects wanting to understand the experiences of the participants and
empowering them to have increased control over their lives. The power is equally
distributed between the researchers and the researched and those being researched are
involved in the process actively. (Wadsworth, 2011)
Participants were rooming house tenants living in two privately owned rooming houses on
the Mornington Peninsula. One rooming house had a 21 room capacity whilst the other had
9 rooms. Following PAR principles, research with a focus on letting people tell their stories
and identify their own needs and solutions was forefront in approach.
The research activities were conducted over a period of six months with a specific focus on
the Mornington Peninsula Shire and entailed the following:
INITIAL INTERVIEWS were undertaken with residents, private rooming owners and organisations
that make referrals into rooming houses. Questions to residents were open ended and
included the following:-
 What is good about living in a rooming house?
 What is bad about living in a rooming house?
 What support needs do you think are needed for people living in a rooming house?
Specific demographic questions were included where appropriate to provide meaning to the
data. See appendix 1 for detailed questionnaire.
Each participant was provided with a $20 Coles gift card in exchange for their participation
in individual interviews.
ROOMING HOUSE VISITS- Results from the initial interviews indicated that residents wanted a
support worker to visit on a regular basis. (Appendix 2) Two workers were then appointed
to visit each rooming house once a fortnight bringing a light lunch. These visits were kept
deliberately informal without a set agenda. These visits allowed residents to continue
voicing their thoughts and researchers were able to learn from this knowledge and focus on
the processes that would help residents to improve their situation.

of 24
TENANT FOCUS GROUPS were held with residents toward the end of the project to ascertain the
effectiveness of visits and to communicate questionnaire data. Residents were provided
with a meal at Seawinds Community Hub and a material aid voucher.
 Describe your rooming house
 Did having a worker visit your rooming house regularly help you in any way? If yes, in
what way? If no, why not?
 If a worker continued to visit what should they do?
 What support needs do you have?
CONFIDENTIALITY – Individual residents have not been identified unless they gave permission.
However, it was acknowledged that it is difficult to provide anonymity to each resident
interviewed because they live and work within the community, even if they were not
named.
LIMITATIONS- Private rooming houses residents who took part in the research were all with
the same private rooming house proprietor.
This project was designed to provide a snapshot of privately owned rooming houses
operators and residents. Due to funding parameters, the project ran two days per week
over a six month period.
WHAT TENANTS SAY ABOUT ROOMING HOUSES
Tenants of rooming houses have arrived for a
number of different reasons, some because they like
the lifestyle and others because it is the only option
they have. The main reasons people say they lived in
a rooming house was because it was affordable and
easy to get into. Family conflicts, bad housing
history, limited income and/or lack of suitable
housing options are a few of the circumstances that
cause people to choose a rooming house with a small
percentage stating they prefer rooming houses to
anywhere else. ‘The social part is good, living here has a country life feel about it, I am so
happy living here’ says one rooming house tenant.
There is a similar demographic with
tenants living in rooming houses, most
are between 30 and 40 years of age
and most are male (78%). All were on
Centrelink benefits, either receiving
Newstart or a Disability Support
Pension and most hadn’t had secure
housing for more than 5 years.

of 24
When the tenants were initially asked what the best part about
living in a rooming house, the majority said, it was the social
aspect. ‘I’m a bit of a loner and I get depressed, these people get
me out of my room’ said one tenant. The second response was
affordability – ‘It’s easy to get in and easy to get out’ stated Bob, a
tenant of 4 months who has been living in and out of rooming
houses for the past 11 years. In talking to tenants it became clear
that rooming house living isn’t their dream but it has provided a
roof over their head. Many of the tenants have had a long history
of rooming house living.
When they were asked ‘What are some of the bad parts about living in a Rooming House?’
there were a number of responses given but drug/alcohol use and lack of privacy ranked the
highest. ‘This is a hard place to be if you want to quit smoking or
drinking’ said one tenant, ‘Junkies are scary, that is when all the
problems start’ said another. One tenant explained he was an
alcoholic and finds it easier to drink in a rooming house, even
though he had gone 8 days without a drink he says it is tough to
resist the culture.
Sharing a bathroom and kitchen with people is also a challenge.
‘You shouldn’t have to live with other peoples’ dirt’ was one
remark by a tenant. Samantha who has just recently moved into a rooming house with her
partner commented, ‘I can’t even live with my family much less strangers.’ Samantha and
her partner would much rather have their own place but getting the bond and rent in
advance together is a challenge when you are living on Newstart and paying $175 a week
each to live in the rooming house.
Tenants had a lot to say when it came to ways to improve rooming
house living. Stricter regulations on rooming houses, common
areas to relax in, cheaper rent, better referrals for people coming
in were all suggestion made. One tenant felt having a ‘lead tenant’
would help sort out the issues and make the rules and regulations
clear from the start when a new tenant moves in. ‘Agencies have
to understand the individual house and the people in there and try
and find the best fit for each house. It only takes one person to
make it all go to crap and it snowballs from there.’

of 24
When talking with tenants about support needs it became apparent that people often feel
lonely and isolated and supports were needed. ‘Having a life coach visit this place would be
great, people get very down and need support and
connection to services’ said Ethan, a tenant who has been
living in and out of rooming houses for years. Another
young man stated ‘I have seen a lot of death and some days
I just don’t want to go on living. I get very down. People in
here are pretty depressed and having someone come here
might get them out of their rooms’. Almost all people
interviewed brought the issue of people being depressed
and half of those all felt a regular support worker coming in
would help.
The other significant needs tenants identified were food assistance and material aid. ‘Food
is a great connector and by the time people pay their rent there isn’t a lot left over for food.’
Over a third of people interviewed mentioned the need for food assistance and many
reflected that they didn’t feel people were eating and looking after themselves. ‘It was good
to have sandwiches today, someone knows we are alive!’ said Frank, a resident with
significant health issues who often finds it difficult to get out and cook for himself.
ROOMING HOUSE VISITS
As a response to the initial one-on-one interviews, regular visits to the rooming houses were
established. Two workers visited both rooming houses
fortnightly and provided a light lunch and the chance for a
chat. As part of participatory action research, it was
important to build relationship and not impose solutions
onto clients. The chats were mostly social but as questions
came up workers were able to share relevant information,
mostly around where services were available in the local
area. Often other residents knew more about local
resources and supports than the workers and were able to
assist each other. Some residents took up the opportunity
to take the worker aside and make enquiries ranging from
rent in arrears to finding a lost family member.
Different agencies were also invited to visit during the lunchtime visits to help bring
resources and support to tenants. A worker from Seawinds Community Hub in Rosebud
West came along to talk to tenants about volunteering and training opportunities available
in the community. A Salvation Army Corps Major came and spoke about the free local
breakfasts in Rosebud and how the Salvation Army can help if needed. From a worker’s
point of view, having the agency visits was not as effective as hoped. Tenants seemed less
engaged and didn’t hang around to talk during the meal when there were visiting agencies
Tenant Identified
Support Needs %
Health 28%
Material Aid 22%
Employment 22%
Budgeting 17%
Housing 11%
Legal 6%
Social Inclusion 6%
‘It was good to have
sandwiches today,
someone knows we
are alive!’ Julian,
rooming house
tenant

of 24
in attendance. Having agencies visits consecutively may
have been the issue so after noticing the lack of
engagement workers decided to stop having agencies
visit for a few weeks and numbers climbed back again.
On the whole tenants were easy going and willing to
share parts of their life stories with workers- the good
and the bad. Tenants gratefully acknowledged the fact
that workers brought food and were willing to share
time with them. Even though they were living in a house
with lots of people around them, some seemed more
isolated than others and workers felt challenged in
engaging those who would not come out of their rooms.
However, the workers observed there was an increase in
engagement and request for support towards the end of
the project. This indicated that both time and
relationships are key to effective support.
FOCUS GROUPS
Focus groups were organised to get feedback from
residents about support worker visits and as a follow up
from the individual interviews. Separate focus groups
from each house were held at Seawinds Community Hub
with a free lunch for all who participated.
Each group was asked the following questions-
 Describe your Rooming House
 Was a support worker visiting the rooming house helpful? Why or Why not?
 How could we support people in rooming houses better?
The first question was used as a warm up and a way to get the group talking. Answers
reflected much of the same information as the earlier individual interviews held at the
beginning of the research. However, there were many more negative comments about
rooming houses than positive.
Regarding support worker visits, the groups from both the rooming houses overwhelmingly
stated they saw it as a positive, with responses such as ‘because it was a new introduction
to different services’, ‘social activity, got people out of their room’, ‘someone to ask what’s
in the area’ and ‘got a chance for new tenants to meet’.
The final question was ‘How could we support people in rooming houses better?’ There
were a wide range of responses given, from support and information, assistance in filling
out forms, financial counselling, employment assistance, more field trips. Even the exercise
Stan has worked most of his
life and hates not working. He
used to be a foreman with an
excavation company as well as
having been a manager at a
retail store. His marriage
broke down he hasn’t seen his
kids in over a year. He lived on
the beach for 9 weeks before
finding out about PYFS, he was
sitting in a McDonalds, he used
to go there so he could watch a
bit of TV and get out of being
outside and 2 older ladies
started talking to him. They
were church ladies and as he
relayed his story they told him
about PYFS. Stan has never
needed any of these services
and didn’t even know they
existed. He went to PYFS and
they helped him get into the
rooming house.

of 24
of the residents travelling together for the focus groups seemed to be an enjoyable and
most commented on wanting to do it again.
In the group from the smaller rooming house both time and group size allowed questions to
be asked about the group’s housing goals. Their initial response was money, work, car then
upon reflection decided you need a whole lot of skills and abilities these included self-
esteem, confidence, understanding of goals, initiative, education, direction, motivation,
experience and self-awareness.
Overall the feedback from the residents was positive to having the workers visiting and the
support and information they provided was of benefit to the residents. Each resident had
their own reason as to why it was of benefit, some tangible others not.
WHAT OWNERS SAY ABOUT ROOMING HOUSES
For many people Private Rooming House owners are a bit of an unknown. When
interviewing tenants or agencies that work with Rooming House owners, the perception and
or consensus is that money is the core reason for owning a rooming house. However, in
speaking with Rooming House owners, it was much more than just financial gain that keeps
them in the rooming house business. One rooming house owner said, ‘I know a lot of
people think money is the biggest reason I do this, but the reality is I enjoy the people, I find
most of them are good folks, they have interesting stories and most of the time are easy to
have around.’
For many of the owners, they feel they are doing the community a service by providing
affordable accommodation for vulnerable people. When asked what was good about
rooming houses, helping people was the main answer they gave. ‘At the end of the day it
does have to be viable, but we do have a social conscience and that is also part of why we
do it.’
When asked what the negative things are about running rooming houses the answers were
more prolific. For one owner the danger of being assaulted was high on the list. Since
becoming a rooming house operator this owner had felt the need to get self-defence
instruction and at times had concerns for his personal safety. Another operator said the
worst thing about running a rooming house was people who violate the rules and won’t
leave. ‘It is very hard to get some people out even though they have done the wrong thing
and are making the rest of the tenants unhappy.’ Another operator agrees stating ‘Often an
owner can’t do much to a disruptive tenant until they do something drastic or don’t pay
their rent. Sometimes you have to wait for something bad to happen before you can do
something, which is frustrating because a lot of upset happens to the rest of the house in
the in-between.’
‘In an ideal world you would like your tenants to have an option which gives them
opportunity to move out/up easily but the reality is the more options, the worse they
behave. The less options, the better they behave. If it is easy to get in and out they tend not
to respect the tenancy and won’t think twice about burning their bridges….as the market

of 24
gets less responsive to needs, tenancies become a valuable thing and tenants won’t abuse
the system.’ (Rooming House Owner)
Rooming House operators had much to say in regards to improving life in a rooming house.
One of the main issues was the referral process and the
communication between agency, tenant and operator.
‘As Landlords we should have the right to ask questions
and get honest answers’ said one rooming house owner.
Most operators meet personally with each potential
client before allowing them into one of their properties
but sometimes tenants do not present with complex
issues and it isn’t until a few days into the residency that
trouble starts. One operator said ‘it is very hard to say
no to someone who arrives with suitcase in hand asking
where their room is, even though you as an operator
know they are going to be a problem.’ This becomes
especially difficult when they have been referred by an
agency and the owner trusts the agency would only
recommend them if they felt it was the best for both the
new individual as well as the existing tenants.
One owner has found that some workers put the needs
of their client over the needs of all in the house. This
operator would like to establish a ‘privacy disclosure’ for
clients wanting to come into his rooming houses. This
would give the worker the right to disclose any
information that is relevant for the operator to know in
order to ensure the safety of all in the house.
In regards to working with different agencies, there was
a mixed reaction from owners. One owner will only take
referrals from PYFS because she found Department of
Justice and mental health provider referrals are too
much trouble. Another expressed frustration when
workers only consider the side of the client and not the
side of the owner. The owner gave an example of a
client who complained to the housing agency about the
standards of his rooming house but failed to
communicate to worker that they were the one who
actually caused much of the damage. The workers
believe the client and didn’t investigate allegation with
owner and stopped sending potential clients to the
house.
Frank got into Rooming
Houses by accident. He
had bought Smiths
Holiday House in 2001
with the intention of
fixing it up and making it
a backpacker's and
holiday accommodation.
He found himself with a
large building and not
many backpackers.
Someone contacted him
about the vacancy sign
at front – ‘did he have a
room to rent?’ He started
letting a few people rent
weekly and then a few
agencies started to ask if
they could put people in.
Next thing Frank has 4
men in suits at his place
giving him the 3rd
degree. He had no idea
what he was doing was
running a rooming
house. They required
him to register and bring
things up to standard
and gave him 3 years to
do it. He has done that
and now is expanding.

of 24
Another area of improvement was support from local councils. For rooming house owners
who feel that a rooming house is providing a much needed service in the community then
council should support their business. Most feel the registration process is fairly
straightforward but that if it got too complicated it just wouldn’t be worth it.
Some owners get support from the Residential Accommodation Association of Victoria
(RAAV) which is an association created to support rooming house owners and to encourage
best practice standards. On their website there is information on most aspects of running a
rooming house as well as case studies to encourage a high standard of practice. As the
increase of rooming house continues RAAV encourages new owners to consider all aspects
of the industry. In their handbook ‘Running a Better Rooming House: A best practice
handbook for operators’ they state ‘The long-term success of operating rooming houses
requires taking a sound commercial approach; this will reduce the chances of you making
quick or poor decisions. This is especially important if you do not have much experience
operating a rooming house.’ (RAAV, 2013)
Though time did not permit an in-depth look at a wide variety of rooming house operators,
it was clear that operators are a key part of maintaining a successful tenancy and are part of
the solution to lack of accommodation on the Mornington Peninsula. Developing
relationships between agencies, owners and services could assist in providing support for
tenants and is worth pursuing.
WHAT AGENCIES WORKING WITH PEOPLE LIVING IN ROOMING HOUSES SAY
There are a wide variety of agencies that have connections with rooming houses. Housing
agencies, mental health workers, chronic health providers and community organisations
often have clients in rooming houses and have insight into the support needs of people
living there. ‘For many of my clients who have burned all their bridges with family and
private rental, rooming houses are the only option.’ (Homelessness health worker) All
agencies interviewed agreed that rooming houses are providing a roof over people’s head
and have had to be a solution for people needing crisis and short term accommodation.
‘Workers are protecting the individual, Landlords are protecting the group’
Rooming House owner

of 24
Like the owners, agencies had much more to say about the negatives of a rooming house
and the improvements needed. One of the main issues mentioned by agencies was referral
processes. ‘One of the biggest problems is that rooming house owners procure tenants from
a wide variety of agencies – Mental Health, Dept. of Justice, Domestic Violence agencies,
this can cause a melting pot of people and can be dangerous for those most vulnerable.’
(Housing worker) Developing a referral system that assists in placing people in the right
rooming house is needed but how that works and who would facilitate it is not so clear.
One worker who has worked in advocacy for tenant issues observed that having multi-
agency referrals into rooming house can result in rooming owners ‘double dipping’. He gave
the example of Housing Agency B financially supporting a client with rent in advance for 2
weeks at Blue Fish Rooming House. After three days the client leaves because they feel
scared and intimidated. The client then goes to Housing Agency C in a different area and
gets another lot of rent in advance and moves into a different rooming house. Blue Fish
Rooming House keeps the clients rent in advance but puts another tenant in his room.
One health worker stated the relationship between rooming house owners and workers
operates on ‘mutual dishonesty- owners don’t disclose the state of their houses and
agencies don’t disclose the client issues or potential conflict.’
This issue of referral leads into another key issue that over half of the agencies interviewed
brought up. The issue of gender imbalance in rooming houses seems to concern many of
the agencies working with clients in rooming houses. ‘One female to eight men creates a
bad mix, especially for the women who may have had previous experience with domestic
violence’. (Mental health worker) The need for rooming houses that catered to specific
needs was highlighted. Women only, over 55 years old, single men, families were all
suggested as areas of specific need.
Kathy Rodis, an RDNS Homeless Persons Program nurse, visits a number of rooming houses
in the Frankston area. Kathy has observed that many of the tenants she is in contact with
from the Rooming Houses are getting very ad hoc support from agencies and the
effectiveness of the support is often limited. ‘The clients in rooming houses often have very
complex needs and this requires workers to have a targeted mandate to work with
marginalised people in rooming house and a specific set of skills’, Kathy says. ‘Workers can
be overwhelmed by the needs encountered. Clients soon get discouraged and stop
engaging if they perceive that the worker can’t deliver.'
‘Rooming houses operate on mutual dishonesty- owners don’t disclose the
state of their houses and agencies don’t disclose the client issues or
potential conflict.’ Housing/Health worker

of 24
‘Often for vulnerable clients organising an Administration Order so their rent is paid and
they are not evicted is required’. However this requires that a worker has the skills to make
an assessment and an understanding of how to apply for an Administration Order.
Kathy is not alone in this observation. Jasmin Underwood, Rooming House worker for the
Peninsula Community Legal Centre (PCLC) stated that almost all of the tenants she comes
across are in need of support of some kind. Jasmin visits rooming houses to assist people
with any tenancy issues they may have and encourages tenants to know their rights. The
interesting thing to note is that out of all the people Jasmin talks to, many with significant
tenancy issues, only a small percentage actually lodge a formal complaint against a landlord.
‘People are too scared to complain, because of the fear of the landlord retaliating and
asking them to leave’.
Issues around safety, cleanliness and security are all areas that agencies mentioned when
being interviewed about improvements for a rooming house. ‘Some rooming houses are
absolutely disgusting’ one housing worker commented with another suggesting having a
manager on site dealing with the day to day issues. ‘Having a manager onsite to manage
issues is something that rooming house owners should consider. The wages of someone
(not a lead tenant) could cost them less in the long run.’ The issue of managers or lead
tenants had a mixed response, four agencies brought up the need for rooming houses to be
managed while one organisation felt having a lead tenant ‘just seemed to pass some of the
responsibility from owner to lead tenant’ and caused more problems than solutions.
Training for rooming house owners was another area agencies felt could improve rooming
houses. Training in areas of legal responsibilities for owners, conflict resolution and working
with vulnerable people were all skills agencies felt owners needed. One housing services
coordinator mentioned that a rooming house operator had contacted their service to see if
they would train him in how to make an assessment of whether a person was suitable or not
for living in his rooming house. The service refused feeling that as a non-profit, client
focussed service they did not have a responsibility to educate a private business owner on
how to manage their customers. ‘They [private rooming house owners] are running a
business so it is their responsibility to determine what tenants they do or do not want’ We
are a housing agency- our responsibility is to find accommodation for vulnerable people, not
vet their clients for them’ (housing agency coordinator).
On the whole agencies identified there needs to be more work done in and around rooming
houses. ‘People are far too vulnerable to be in rooming houses, but where else can we put
them?’ said Lizette McCasker, Coordinator of PYFS Crisis Centre, Frankston. Unanimously
workers felt having crisis accommodation and more affordable housing would greatly
improve the options for people who find themselves homeless and in a crisis but until then
resources and supports need to be developed.

of 24
The table below identifies needs workers from of agencies that work with rooming houses
brought up during interview. These were not needs identified on a questionnaire but needs
that workers brought up spontaneously.
REFERRALS INTO ROOMING HOUSES
Knowing that the referral process for getting into a rooming house has always been an issue,
part of this project attempted to develop a referral system that would facilitate better client
placement and rooming house owner expectations. Working with a local rooming house
proprietor PYFS developed a simple referral tool.
A system was also developed for workers to be advised when vacancies became available
and at which rooming houses. Criteria was also developed for prospective tenants and
assisted in clarifying expectations and in turn helped workers to refer clients appropriately.
The criteria were as follows:-
1. Able to sustain independent living
2. Prospective tenant does not present substance affected
3. Prospective tenant understands the Rooming House costs and requirements
4. Prospective tenant is aware of location of Rooming House and can get there
independently
5. Prospective tenant does not present with unacceptable behavioural issues that may
indicate potential problems for other tenants at Rooming House.
It is important to note that workers are only responsible to assess the behaviour of their
client at the time of assessment and do not take any responsibility for behaviour after
referral is made. A referral form is emailed to the private rooming house owner and the
client arranges to meet and view the property.
A system was also put into place whereby if a tenant had support needs then the private
rooming house proprietor would advise the relevant agency of these needs. Assisting
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Gender specific
Houses
Referral
processed
developed
Manager on site Training for
Owners
Support worker
for rooming
houses
Agency Identified Needs for Rooming Houses

of 24
clients to maintain their housing by providing support overcomes the need to keep spending
resources on rehousing clients and improves housing outcomes.
Though this process was developed it was not always easy to maintain because of time
restraints for workers and owners. However, a better working relationship and ongoing
communication has been established between the referring agency and the private rooming
house proprietor which has benefitted all parties. Ongoing work will need to be done to see
the processes developed further and embedded into practice of both workers and owners.
TENANT OUTCOMES FROM PROJECT
As the support worker continued to visit the rooming houses, engagement increased. It was
clear that the social interaction and emotional support by the sharing of time and the
preparation and supplying of a meal by the rooming house worker were important factors in
the positive outcome of this research. As a result tenants were able to be referred and
linked into formal supports. The following table shows the number of tenants assisted.
Need/Issue No. People
Support with housing issues 6
Support with health issues 2
Referrals to other agencies/supports
Employment 2
Volunteering 2
Legal 1
Private rental accessed 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUPPORT WORKER
Across all people interviewed, it is clear that support is needed for people living in a rooming
house. A worker to regularly visit, establish relationships and provide linkages to existing
services. Tenants wanted a worker to help them connect to long term accommodation
solutions and support services. Owners wanted support for challenging tenants who they
knew needed assistance. Agencies wanted communication between services and a
coordinated care plan for clients living in rooming houses.
TRAINING FOR OWNERS
Of the tenants and agencies interviewed, there was a repeated theme that training for the
owners of private rooming houses was required in the following areas:
 Working with vulnerable people
 Conflict resolution
 Legislation and Safety Requirements for Rooming Houses
Discussions around whether the local council could provide short workshops to owners on
the above areas with guest speakers from the Tenants Union, Consumer Affairs and Mental

of 24
Health agencies would be relatively inexpensive and local. Motivations for owners to attend
could be that they are free and incentives such as a rate discount could be explored.
FURTHER RESEARCH
As the project progressed it became clear that more significant research into the support
needs of people living in a rooming house was necessary. As rooming houses continue to
increase in numbers, research into the long term effects of rooming houses on community
and individuals would assist in developing programs and supports.
CONCLUSION
In the current economic and political environment rooming houses provide a much needed
accommodation option for people in crisis and/or low income earners. Developing support
systems, referral processes and best practice standards are preventative measures that will
ensure rooming houses are safe places for tenants, owners, agencies and the general
community. Tenants, owners and agencies are each vital components to effective and
sustainable practice as rooming houses continue to be used to house vulnerable people.
.
Assisting clients to maintain their housing by providing support overcomes
the need to keep spending resources on rehousing clients and improves
housing outcomes.

of 24
REFERENCES
Consumer Affairs Victoria. (2012). Rooming Houses- A guide for residents and operators.
Melbourne: Consumer Affairs Victoria.
Residential Accommodation Association of Victoria. (2013). Running a better rooming
house: A best practice handbook for operators Melbourne: Residential Accommodation
Association of Victoria.
Wadsworth, Yoland. (2011). Do It Yourself Social Research (3rd ed.). Victoria: Allen & Unwin.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, P., Hume, A., Rogers, N. & Stephenson, T. (2000). It’s no palace: boarding houses, the
sector, its clientele and its future, Department of Human Services South Australia, Adelaide.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). Methodological review of counting the homeless 2006, Cat.
No. 2050.0.55.001, ABS, Canberra.
Chamberlain, C. (1999). Counting the homeless: implications for policy development, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Cat. No. 2041.0, Canberra.
Chamberlain, C. & MacKenzie, D. (2008). Counting the homeless 2006, Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Cat. No. 2050.0, Canberra.
Davidson, A., Phibbs, P. & Cox, G. (1998). Inner Sydney boarding house report, Urban and Regional
Planning Program, University of Sydney, Sydney.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2008). The road
home: a national approach to reducing homelessness, FaHCSIA, Canberra.
Department of Human Services Victoria (2011). Proposed residential tenancies (rooming house
standards) regulations, DHS, Melbourne.
Everard, N 2008, I Require Medical Asistance, Royal District Nursing Service, Melbourne
Greenhalgh, E., Miller, A., Minnery, J., Gurran, N., Jacobs & Phibbs, P. (2004). Boarding houses and
government supply side intervention, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute,
Melbourne.
Jope, S. (2000). On the threshold: the future of private rooming houses in the City of Yarra,
Brotherhood of St Laurence, Melbourne.
Kliger, B. (2003). Rooms for the future: a strategy and action plan for the retention and
development of socially responsible private rooming houses, Inner Urban Rooming House
Project, Melbourne.
National Shelter (2000). National overview of boarding houses in Australia, National Shelter,
Sydney.
Reid, J. & McDonald, C. (2010). I Need Connection, City Life, Frankston Victoria
Reid, J., Griffin, J. & Murdoch, F. (2005). ‘Services for people experiencing homelessness’, in
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australia’s welfare 2005, AIHW, cat. no. AUS 65,
Canberra.

of 24
Rooming House Standards Taskforce (2009). Chairperson’s report, Victorian Government,
Melbourne.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1- Project Goals, Objectives and Plan
Appendix 2 – Rooming House Schedule
Appendix 3 – Owner Questionnaire
Appendix 4 - Tenant Questionnaire

of 24
APPENDIX 1
ROOMING HOUSE PROJECT
Project Goal: Project with Mornington Shire Council and PYFS to investigate potential model for referring clients appropriately to
rooming house owners and the potential to link services involved with individual clients providing support while in rooming
house.
Objective Specific Action Measurable Time Frame
Snapshot of Rooming
Houses: The history in
M’ton Shire, what they
actually are and who lives
in them
Brief history and explanation
of what they are
Gather available
information on
Rooming Houses
Short brief included in
report
Dec 13
Who lives in them-
Demographics of people living
in Rooming Houses- Age,
Gender, Health, Income,
Issues of Vulnerability
Gather, collate and
document
Data info in report Dec 13
Different Types of Rooming
Houses
Women Only, Men Only,
Families, Over 55’s, Private
General, Agency Run
Interview different
owners/managers
Questionnaire created
and Interview data
collection reported to
committee
Jan – Feb 14
Where are they
How many do we have in the
Mornington Shire Council
municipality? Registered and
Unregistered
Meet with MPS Data included in report Jan 14
Organisations involved with
Rooming Houses and those
that refer
Local Council, Housing
Agencies, Police, Mental
Health Agencies, Health
Professionals
Meet with different
agencies
Data collected and key
issues and common
themes identified
Throughout
project
Identify the Issues around
Rooming Houses
Identify issues for rooming
house
For Clients, Owners,
Community, Agencies,
Councils
Meet with various
stakeholders and
document issues
identified by them
Data collected and key
issues and common
themes identified
Ongoing
Models Identify current models of
rooming houses – particularly
ones that are working well for
both residents and operators
Gather, collate and
document short brief
on models
Pilot model identified
and agreed up by
committee
March 14
Referral Document and Develop
Referral Processes
Document current process
and for referring to rooming
houses
Identify more effective
processes and develop them
Identify current
referrals, from
interviews create new
referral process, trial
process and evaluate
Referral processed
developed
March 14
Support Opportunities Identify support opportunities
for both clients and operators
Create list of support
agencies
March/April
/May
Evaluation Evaluate project and results
through client, stakeholder
and partner feedback.
Discuss with steering
committee evaluation
objectives and
processes
Report to PYFS and
partners project
outcomes
June 2014

of 24
APPENDIX 2
ROOMING HOUSE VISIT SCHEDULE
Date Food Agency Activity
People Fed/Talked to
House 1 House 2
12//02/14
Sandwiches PYFS
Pine Cottage only- Initial Visit
and Questionnarres done
13
5/03/2014
Sandwiches PYFS
Maysbury only- Initial Visit
and Questionnarres done
5
19/03/2014
Hot Dogs PYFS Casual chatting 8 5
2/04/2014
Baked Potatoes PYFS Casual chatting 7 6
30/04/2014
Soup
PYFS &
Simon
from
Seawinds
Simon from Seawinds came
and spoke with people
7 5
14/05/2014
Pizzas
PYFS &
Jeff
Philps
Jeff came and spoke about
breakfast
8 4
28/05/2014
Rolls PYFS
Casual chatting and
advertising the Focus Groups
8 4
4/06/2014
Lunch at
Seawinds
PYFS Focus Group for House 1 9
11/06/2014
Lunch at
Seawinds
PYFS Focus Group for House2 6
25/06/2014
Burritos PYFS Casual chatting 10 6

of 24
APPENDIX 3
ROOMING HOUSE TENANT QUESTIONARRE
Thank you for taking time to do this survey for us. We want to find out the good and bad points of living in a rooming house. We will use this
information to help us come up with ways we can work with rooming house operators and agencies that refer people into rooming houses to
improve the process and standards of rooming houses.
How long have you lived in a Rooming House?
How did find out about the Rooming House?
What is the best part about living in a Rooming House?
What are some of the bad parts about living in a Rooming House?
How would you do to improve the bad parts of living in a Rooming House?
Are there areas in your life you feel you need support in?
Managing Finances
Material Aide- Clothing, Bedding, toiletries
Community linkages- getting involved in the community
Appointment support- getting to appointments
Legal Support
Employment
Physical Health
Mental Health
Other Comments:
OPTIONAL (this data will help us identify what people may need for support)
Gender: Age:
Aboriginal or Torres Strait
Islander
Yes No Marital Status: Single Married/Defacto
Do you have children? Yes No
Do your children live
with you?
Yes No
Income Source:
Newstart Disability Support Pension Aged Pension Other Pension
Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Casual Work NONE
Health Issues:
Mental Health Drug & Alcohol Diabetes Heart Problems
Other (Please list health issues that may affect living in a rooming house for example: mobility, special
diet, taking medication)
Are you currently receiving
support for any of the
following agencies?
Peninsula Youth and Family Services (PYFS)
Community Information and Support
MI Health
Peninsula Health
Breaking the Cycle
Peninsula Support Services
Other: (please list)
Women’s Integrated Service
Job Service Network
Department of Justice
St Vinnies
Salvation Army
Anglicare
WAYSS- Domestic Violence Unit
WAYSS
Local Church
VACA
Centrelink Social Worker
List Any Others:

of 24
APPENDIX 4
ROOMING HOUSE OWNER QUESTIONARRE
Thank you for taking time to do this survey for us. We want to find out the good and bad points of living in a rooming house. We will use this
information to help us come up with ways we can work with rooming house operators and agencies that refer people into rooming houses to
improve the process and standards of rooming houses.
How long have you been involved in Rooming Houses?
How many Rooming Houses do you have?
List Houses and number of people in each house:
Do you have a manager or lead tenant for each property? Yes No
Why or why not?
If you do have a manager how does it work? Does he live on site? How does he report to you and what does he report?
What is the best part about owning in a Rooming House?
What is the worst part of owning a Rooming House?
What supports could help improve your Rooming House?
Are there areas do you feel you need support in?
Dealing with Difficult People
Tenancy Laws
Community Connection
Legal Support
Administration
Other (please list)
Other Comments:
Do you have couples? Yes No
Do you have children in your rooming
houses?
Yes No
What is main source of
income for you tenants?
Newstart Disability Support Pension Aged Pension Other Pension
Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Casual Work NONE
Are there Health Issues you
notice about your tenants?
Mental Health Drug & Alcohol Diabetes Heart Problems
Other (Please list health issues that may affect living in a rooming house for example: mobility,
special diet, taking medication)
Do you relate to any of the
following agencies?
Peninsula Youth and Family Services (PYFS)
Community Information and Support
MI Health
Peninsula Health
Breaking the Cycle
Peninsula Support Services
Other: (please list)
Women’s Integrated Service
Job Service Network
Department of Justice
St Vinnies
Salvation Army
Anglicare
WAYSS- Domestic Violence Unit
WAYSS
Local Church
VACA
Centrelink Social Worker
List Any Others:

Making Connections- Report on Rooming House project-final

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (11)

Similaire à Making Connections- Report on Rooming House project-final

Similaire à Making Connections- Report on Rooming House project-final (20)

Making Connections- Report on Rooming House project-final