Opportunity Pathways trial - what you need to know

On Friday, Family and Community Services Minister Pru Goward was widely reported - initially via the The Daily Telegraph - as announcing a new program aimed at incentivising applicants and tenants in public housing to get a job. Goward’s framing of the new program – or at least her framing as reported via the Telegraph – suggests the requirements could apply to all tenants. The Daily Telegraph headline reading: “Want a house? Get a Job. Public housing tenants face tougher employment rules”.

If you read through for the detail it turns out what they are reporting on is a trial aspect of part of the broader Opportunity Pathways program about to be rolled out across NSW.

The trial will involve 20 properties in Punchbowl and Towradgi (in the Illawarra region). Applicants who ‘opt in’ for the trial will have their applications for housing moved through the priority waiting list (‘bumped up the queue’) and will get housed quicker. In return the applicants will be required to engage in education and/or job seeking requirements. Without further detail we're presuming these requirements might look similar to Centrelink’s ‘mutual obligation’ requirements with supports – such as connection to jobs or study, help writing resumes and interview technique tips - provided through a tendered external provider engaged specifically to deliver the Opportunity Pathways program.

Under the trial tenancies will only be 6 months in length. At the end of the 6 months the tenant’s engagement will be assessed. If they are no longer ‘engaging’ as required and haven’t met agreed goals they will be ‘assisted’ out of public housing. If they have found and maintained a job they will be moved into community housing or into the private rental market. So kicked out either way it seems … or in the Minister’s words "increase the number of tenants positively exiting the social housing system".

So much stick, but where’s the carrot?

We're very interested to see what forms of assistance are provided to tenants evicted at the end of 6 months because they didn't meet agreed ‘goals’ to ensure they find alternative housing, i.e. ensure they're not kicked out straight into homelessness. And given the current private rental market what assistance will be provided to tenants evicted after 6 months for finding and keeping a new job to ensure they're not moving immediately into ‘rental stress’.

TL;DR
The Opportunity Pathways program is a trial involving 20 properties in Punchbowl and Towradgi over the next 3 years.
The program is ‘opt in’. Applicants that ‘opt in’ will be provided earlier access to housing but will have to agree to undertake education and employment requirements of program.
If ‘successful’ the program may be rolled out to other areas across the state (note: this does not mean that the program would apply to all tenants, would like remain ‘opt in’ if expanded to other areas).

Some follow up questions we asked FACS and their answers:

• When will the trial begin? 

FACS response: The Opportunity Pathways trial will commence from February 2019 and run for three years.

• How will applicants access the trial? We understand that people will come from the waiting list - will applicants be approached en masse or individually. 

FACS response: Applicants on the Housing Register who may meet eligibility for the trial will be approached individually to be informed about the trial, to assess their suitability and gauge their interest in participating.  The program is completely voluntary and should an applicant not wish to participate, this will not affect their status on the register or future offers.

• How will they be assessed for suitability for the program? That is, will there be some assessment for likelihood of success to avoid people agreeing to terms which are inappropriate for them.   

FACS response: Yes, participants will be assessed for likelihood of success. Suitability assessment will include their willingness and capacity to engage in education, training and employment goals.

• What will be the eligibility criteria at review (at end of what we understand to be a 6 month tenancy agreement)?
  - i.e. on what basis can a tenancy agreement be terminated rather than extended? 

FACS response: Lease renewals are subject to continuing engagement in education, training and employment goals.

• If becomes apparent that tenant is meeting all requirements of program but nonetheless continues to be eligible for social housing at review what will future agreement/social housing tenancy look like? - i.e. will there be a possibility of shifting to longer tenancy agreement (2, 5, 10 year agreements) and/or removal of 'special requirements' of program (in situations where tenant's circs change and requirements deemed no longer appropriate). 

FACS response: The trial provides six month leases that can be extended up to a maximum of three years. Eligibility of participants for further housing assistance at the end of the period will be subject to their circumstances.

• Would this require relocation?

FACS response: See prior answer above.

There is a future briefing mid December. We'll keep you up to date on any further details about the Program we are able to share.

We're keen, for example, to know more about what will be considered measures of 'success' for the trial. Will FACS be tracking all applicants and tenants who take part in the program once they are evicted to find out their housing outcomes over the full duration of the trial? Though not consulted before the announcement of the program, we're hoping that FACS sensibly consults with the housing and homelessness sector as part of its evaluation!

Note: Post was edited 13 December to add in responses provided by FACS regarding the Opportunity Pathways trial.

News from Central Dogma

You most likely do not know it – assuming you are halfway normal, you have almost certainly never even considered the question – but the Tenants’ Union’s network runs deep. Like the all-pervasive roots of an old growth forest, the subject of a Dan Brown novel, or an unhinged diatribe from Alex Jones, we form part of a global system…of tenants’ interest groups.

From Tanzania to Tennessee – and of course Telopea – we are at the coalface advocating for tenants’ rights. And like any global society, we have our own international headquarters. The International Union of Tenants was born in Zurich in 1926, but now finds its home in Stockholm.

International Union of Tenants General Secretary Magnus Hammar (dressed as Pitbull)

Whilst we appreciate the insights and perspective afforded to us by this intercontinental connectedness, we aren’t really detailing our every move back to Sweden. Plus our membership of the IUT is by free association. So put away that tinfoil hat!

And something provided to us recently by the IUT as part of their regular email rounds did give us food for thought. As you probably do know, rent control and its numerous variants have featured prominently in housing conversations of late.

The IUT highlights recent comments made by Kshama Sawant, a Seattle City council member, on the topic of controlling rents. Councillor Sawant compares rent regulation to minimum wage laws; ‘they are both minimum standards necessary to protect against the natural imbalance of power between landlord and tenant, or employer and employee. Rent control is not about repealing the market; it’s about reining in its excesses.’

We really should stress that Sawant’s views do not form part of any official TU position, decreed to us from above. And in any case, it’s not entirely clear which form of rental regulation the Councillor favours.

But we certainly applaud her comparison as both refreshing and engaging, in consideration of the proper role of Government in regulating markets for living space. Given the fundamental importance of shelter – a human right, after all – is it appropriate that we see its attainment as worthy of the same protection as the celebrated right to basic remuneration? How would we best achieve that in addressing the question of rent regulation?

And how would such an approach impact upon other facets of renting policy or housing affordability issues? For one, the Tenants' Union is a long-term proponent of the abolition of no grounds terminations for tenants in NSW. They feed housing insecurity, and disadvantage tenants in every aspect of their relationship with the landlord. At the very least, we suggest that this issue could also be looked at through a very similar lens. 

On a related note, the IUT would be pleased to have us remind you that October 5 is International Tenants Day! Get the streamers ready and the party pies in the oven. And stay tuned from us – we must just have a celebration going here at home.

The Real Magnus Hammer, Sydney, November 2012

Read more on the Tenant's Union's position on 'no grounds' terminations in our 5 Year report on the Residential Tenancies Act 2010

Underemployment and housing insecurity

We were recently discussing unemployment and underemployment, and the awful waste it represents. Not having adequate work also represents a threat to a person's housing, and some new AHURI research puts some numbers on this.

The research focuses on underemployment (that is, where a person is employed less than full-time, and would prefer to work more hours) and notable findings include:

• Of households comprising a single earner who is underemployed, almost half (48.2 per cent) are in private rental (by contrast, 25.6 per cent of all households are in private rental). Of these households:
• 28 per cent fell into rent arrears sometime in the previous year (by contrast, 16.8 per cent of adequately employed single earners had been in arrears);
• 37.1 per cent were 'at risk' of arrears (by contrast, 13.9 per cent of adequately employed single earners were at risk)*;
• 48.9 per cent had difficulty paying other bills in the previous year (by contrast, 31 per cent of adequately employed single earners had difficulty);
• and the median rent paid by these households increased in real terms by 14 per cent over the period 2001-2009 (contrast the real increase of 17.5 per cent paid by adequately employed single earners). 

• Of households comprising multiple earners, at least one of whom is underemployed, 28.3 per cent are in private rental. Of these households:

•  22.6 per cent fell into rent arrears sometime in the previous year (by contrast, 11.6 per cent of adequately employed multiple earner households had been in arrears);
• 16.2 per cent were 'at risk' of arrears (by contrast, eight per cent of adequately employed multiple earner households were at risk);
• 37.9 per cent had difficulty paying other bills in the previous year (by contrast, 22.3 per cent of adequately employed multiple earner households had difficulty);
• and the median rent paid by these households increased in real terms by an awful 54.7 per cent over the period 2001-2009 (contrast the real increase of 26.48 per cent paid by adequately employed multiple earner households)

The researchers also find that underemployment is 'scarring': the odds of an adequately employed person being 'at risk' of arrears are 1.4 times higher if they were underemployed the previous year.

Turning the numbers around, we also find that of private renter households with members in the labour force (counting together multiple earners and single earners):

• 76.35 per cent have all members adequately employed;
• 13.95 per cent have at least one member underemployed;
• 8.7 per cent have at least one member unemployed.

  

* Assessed 'at risk' because they reported they were paying more than 30 per cent of income in rent, would have 'extreme difficulty in raising $2000-$3000 at a time of need, and described themselves as 'just getting by', 'poor' or 'very poor'.