Disability in Women's Housing and Homelessness - Literature review Example

Policy Brief Name Institution Date Policy Brief Introduction Housing security is an essential aspect to human dignity. The levels at which people and families have housing security determine how families function and the nature of and requirement for government income support programs and the efficacy of support services offered for the weak, old and individuals with a disabilities. Housing has been a major problem in Australia where many people cannot afford housing and are at risk of being homeless. However, women are the most affected when it comes to problems with housing and evidently women tend to live within lower income areas and most of them are tenants. In addition, women are especially prone to housing stress and also upgrading in housing affordability is poorer among them ((Phillips & Milligan, 2007). This paper will focus on disability in women' housing and homelessness and accordingly analyze the current women's housing policy in regard to this target group. Disability in Women's Housing and Homelessness Women with disabilities within Australia are one of the most marginalized groups and this is even in government policies, legislation and programs. Women with disabilities have difficulties in acquiring employment and also when compared to their male counterparts they are significantly over-represented within public housing and in most case they live in locations that are susceptible to violence (Hoffman & Coffey, 2008). According to Frohmader (2002) housing conditions for most of women with disabilities in Australia are precarious and insecure as well. There is a decrease in availability of cheap housing, a rise in unemployment and poverty level and also changes in regard to service delivery policies of professional services and all these factors have contributed to an elevated risk of homelessness for a big number of people in Australia. The effect of these factors is more severe on the susceptible groups such as women in disabilities (Gladwell, 2009). Additional costs such as health care costs, costs allied to modifications of houses, costs incurred in buying support equipment and services are some of the extra costs that women with disabilities bear and this increases their options within the housing market. Basically, the extra costs take large percentage of the income and thus result to an increased risk of homelessness for women with disabilities (Tsemberis, 2003). As Hoffman & Coffey (2008) explain, women with disabilities are discriminated in regard to housing market because many landlords perceive them like they are unable to pay the rest and hence they are not ready to risk having them as their tenants. In addition, most houses do not have enough safe guards like security screens and smoke detectors and also the locations normally have poor lightning (McFerran, 2007). For the women with disabilities to have an independent life style, they should be able to have an easy access to support services. Lack of safe and accessible housing increase the risk allied to likelihood of homelessness for women with disabilities (Tsemberis, 2003). Studies have found out that women with disabilities often face domestic violence because of the physical challenges as well economic dependence and this further increases their risk to homelessness because some even end up separating and are unable to cater for their housing needs alone a situation that is made worse by discrimination they face within the housing market and particularly private rental market (Frohmader, 2002). Current Policy Responses The current policy responses to the housing crisis in Australia include the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) which is the core policy framework that guides the government’s commitment to housing. NAHA has been used to ensure there is housing affordability where NAHA provides a comprehensible specification on responsibilities of all government levels and it encompasses decreased Commonwealth recommendations on service delivery by states and thus ensures an enhanced focus on accountability for improved outcomes and better service delivery. In NAHA, affordable housing is among the core national service delivery areas (Bullen, 2010). Other reforms targeted in reforming housing in through NAHA Australia consist of incorporation of the homelessness service system with conventional housing services; decreased concentrations of shortcoming on public housing lands; enhancing the capacity as well as scale of the not for profit segment in housing; promotion of more efficacy within the housing supply by planning and land supply processes; and also improvement of the access of indigenous individuals within urban and regional areas to mainstream housing services and this also includes home ownership (Australian Capital Territory Government, 2011). There are also stimulus packages meant to improve housing in Australia and they include aiding first home buyers which involve the government contributing into savings accounts of the potential first home buyers and afterward utilized in buying a house. Government contributes 17 percent of first $5000 saved yearly for four consecutive years (Bullen, 2010). National Partnership Payment (NPP) Homelessness scheme aims at reducing homelessness by preventing and stopping individuals to become homeless; breaking the homelessness cycle and improvement and expansion of the service response to homelessness; here there is NPP Social Housing Program aimed at reducing homelessness and NPP Remote Indigenous Housing Program that aims at reducing the living standards of indigenous individuals in remote areas (Australian Capital Territory Government, 2011). There is also National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) that includes a new tax incentive for new rental housing supply let to qualified low and average income homes at no more that 80 percent of local market rent charges. There is also Housing Affordability Fund (HAF) that funds state and local governments to decrease up from costs of offering housing that are allied to reducing costs that developers incur due to long planning, infrastructure, transport, and such. “A Place to Call Home” is a program that immediately places homeless individuals within permanent housing with support for a year (Bullen, 2010). Another program is Surplus Commonwealth land for housing which gives excess Commonwealth land to raise supply of housing. Lastly, mechanisms have been put for supporting the banking sector, underpinning mortgages facilities and working with lenders to offer mortgage relief for individuals who are at risk of losing their houses and homes because of unexpected circumstances (Atherton & McNaughton, 2008). Gaps between Policy and Practice Even though giving land to increase supply of housing increases housing supply and also reduces the cost of house, this scheme presents various challenges. One, the available land that is released for development is located within city outskirts and remote areas (Bullen, 2010). House prices in such areas are already dropping and thus increasing the supply will result to more lower house prices in the areas while the cost of houses near cities will still remain high. Therefore, this does not solve the housing problem in areas located around the cities. Another problem is that many individuals who previously purchased houses in the areas end up owning a mortgage that is worth more than the houses yet they are the same individuals mostly affected by the increasing cost of living like high fuel costs (McNaughton & Atherton, 2011). Additionally, subsidies like “First Home Buyers” do not make housing more affordable and they also translate directly into higher prices. Again, “First Home Buyers” scheme has a minimum saving period of four years that restricts the opportunity for buyers to respond to market condition. Funding and distribution in National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) is based on historic allocations and thus it is not based on the needs of people (Hoffman & Coffey, 2008). In general, the policy does not adequately address the root cause of homelessness. For instance, many women face homelessness due to unemployment, domestic violence or disabilities and hence by the policy not tackling the such root problems, there will be still an increasing number of homelessness due to various root cause problems (McNaughton & Atherton, 2011). Again, most of the people who are homeless are renters who cannot afford to buy houses. The policy does not adequately address the issue of rent because the policy mostly focuses on owning homes and not renters. In addition, the since the policy mostly addressed homelessness through mortgages and financial institutions, in Australia rent have increased slower than mortgage repayments and hence the price signals are pushing individuals out of house market into rental market which in turn cause rents too to increase and hence more financial burden on the renters (McNaughton & Atherton, 2011). Recommendations 1. The policy should set out funding for the groups that are most susceptible to homelessness such as women with disabilities. This funding should be allocated to specialist women, disability, and domestic violence services to not only fund the housing but also for support and service delivery system. 2. The policy should consider implementing efficient and cheap public transport systems to ensure that those living in the city/towns’ outskirts where housing is less costly and work in towns and cities have do not cost of living pressures like increased fuel costs. In addition, if public transport extends to the outskirts, more individuals would comfortably live in these areas with lower house prices and hence this can balance demand levels across all areas of cities and towns. 3. Amount of public housing should be increased as this can provide the people with low income an affordable housing. 4. Since homelessness results to factors such as poverty, disability, unemployment and domestic violence and such people cannot secure and maintain private housing on statutory income, it is recommended that the Centerlink’s Crisis payments be extended for such susceptible people. 5. The amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) that is given to private tenants should be increased to improve affordability in the private rental market. 6. Individuals such as women with disabilities and unemployed need more support such as more aid with housing costs, disability services and support to enable them develop life and employment skills and also aid to buy basic requirements like furniture (Mangano, 2009). Conclusion Housing affordability is a key problem in Australia and especially for vulnerable groups such as women with disabilities. This is because such groups have a high likelihood of ending up being homeless due to factors such as lack of income, domestic violence, and also such people are discriminated in housing markets. Housing policy has been used to address the housing problem through actions and schemes such as National Rental Affordability Scheme, First Home Buyers, National Affordable Housing Agreement and such. However, the policy has limitations; for instance “First Home Buyers” do not make housing more affordable and they also translate directly into higher prices, the policy does not adequately address rent issues. Recommendations such as increasing amount of public housing and support to the groups most susceptible to homelessness have made to address these limitations. Bibliography Atherton, I & McNaughton N, 2008, Housing First' as a means of addressing multiple needs and homelessness, European Journal of Homelessness, 2:289–303. Australian Capital Territory Government, 2011, Social Housing and Homelessness Services. Bullen, J, 2010, From transitional housing to permanent housing models for homeless people, Parity, 23(7): 5–7. Frohmader, C, 2002, There is no justice – there’s just us. The status of women with disabilities in Australia, Women with Disabilities Australia. Rosny Par. Hoffman, L & Coffey, B, 2008, Dignity and indignation: How people experiencing homelessness view services and providers, The Social Science Journal, 45(2): 207-222. Gladwell, M, 2009, What the Dog Saw and other adventures, London: Allen Lane. Mangano, P, 2009, Housing when? Evidence based practice for solving homelessness, Sydney: Mercy Foundation. McFerran, L, 2007, Taking back the castle: how Australia is making the home safer for women and children, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Issues Paper 14. McNaughton N & Atherton, I, 2011, Housing First: Considering components for successful resettlement of homeless people with multiple needs, Housing Studies, 25(5), 767–777. Phillips, R & Milligan, V, 2007, Integration and Social Housing in Australia: Challenges and Options, Brisbane: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute: Queensland Research Centre. Tsemberis, S, 2003, Housing, hospitalisation, and cost outcomes for homeless individuals with psychiatric disabilities participating in continuum of care and Housing First programmes, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12(2): 171–186. Read More