TY  - RPRT
AB  - Tenants, government housing providers and Indigenous organisations are often seeking different outcomes from social housing, which leads to considerable misunderstanding and diversity of views.
AU  - Moran, Mark
AU  - Memmott, Paul
AU  - Nash, Daphne
AU  - Birdsall-Jones, Chris
AU  - Fantin, Shaneen
AU  - Phillips, Rhonda
AU  - Habibis, Daphne
CY  - Melbourne
L1  - internal-pdf://0493047293/AHURI_Final_Report_No260_Indigenous lifeworlds.pdf
M1  - 21705
M3  - FR
N1  - The analysis of the tenant, government and Indigenous organisational perceptions showed that the three groups were often seeking different outcomes, leading to considerable misunderstanding and diversity of views. Although the project hypothesised the necessity of a recognition space, that did not mean it could always be found. There are entropies in Aboriginal lifeworlds, policy conditionalities and intermediary governance that powerfully hold the different groups back from engaging in discussion. There was, however, evidence of the recognition space occurring at times, with both corroding and sustaining influences.

Tenants and Departmental Housing Officers (DHOs) typically had divergent opinions on eligibility for social housing and tenant responsibilities, especially with the management of visitors. Similarly, tenants and DHOs viewed the systems of repairs and maintenance (R&M) differently, with tenants prioritising their own comfort and health and SHAs more focussed on cost efficiencies. Tenants had little understanding of their rights and responsibilities under their tenancy agreements or the formal notices sent to them. Furthermore, high rates of policy change and staff turnover in SHAs and intermediary organisations impeded opportunities for recognition spaces to form by limiting the development of trusting relationships.

In general, tenants emphasised the importance of family and kin relationships as well as cultural and historical connections to land. These relationships were highly significant forms of sociocultural capital, which were called on for support during times of need. The roles and responsibilities that tenants assumed under their tenancy agreements were occasionally at odds with these sociocultural responsibilities, especially when it came to accommodating visitors. By accommodating visitors, they themselves were entitled to visit others when needed, at times of financial or emotional stress, or during conflicts. Accommodating visitors did, at times result in anti-social behaviour (ASB), excessive alcohol consumption and damage to property. More commonly, however, visitations led to depleted finances, rental debts and household stress.

Tenancy management styles
The study looked specifically at good practice and principles for broader policy uptake. It identified the need for local implementation plans, based broadly on the existing consensus of achieving safe and secure housing for the tenants with the highest need. These plans could be developed using the principle of participatory planning and evaluation. This is where tenants, leaders and housing officers could come together to develop local policies for operationalising and implementing the conditionalities of housing policy, including local measures for assessing their effectiveness. The study identified a number of ideas that tenants generated themselves for how to improve tenancy management. Even the most disadvantaged tenants held views on how to manage other troubled tenants.

The potential for supporting good practice was also identified in the study in relation to strong women who were in leadership roles in their communities. The majority of head tenants were female and programs to support them and build their capacity were viewed as a constructive way to maintain tenancies and help stabilise families and their communities. The study also identified the following four main enablers of the recognition space.
à effective face-to-face communication
à stability and flexibility in frontline relationships
à at least some Indigenous staff in housing offices
à strong community governance structures.

From the observation and discussion of tenancy management styles across the study sites, the study has characterised two different types of conditionalities (negotiated and targeted) that are most likely to achieve positive housing outcomes. Negotiated conditionalities and targeted conditionalities are in contrast to the dominant coercive mode of conditionality in welfare and housing policy.

Negotiated conditionalities rely more on persuasion, assertive engagement and influence than on punitive coercion, as evidenced by the frontline workers in tenancy management. The realities faced by frontline workers were that many of punitive conditionalities were just not implementable. Evictions in the absence of alternatives can result in homelessness and goes contrary to their typical local ethos of helping the most disadvantaged tenants. It also carried the potential of political repercussion and, occasionally, threats of violence. Thus, in practice, frontline workers operate more in the realm of face-to-face persuasion, assertive engagement and influence than stand-off punitive coercion. The threat of eviction nonetheless appeared to be necessary to allow this negotiation to occur, and frontline housing officers would actively draw in the police and their more-senior departmental staff to reinforce it.

Targeted conditionalities, on the other hand, recognise the diversity in the tenant population and respond in a holistic way to the set of circumstances that define the tenant’s housing needs. Since people respond differently to different theories of change based on their particular circumstances, it may well be that a different kind of conditionality might be better suited to bring about the desired changes for this group.

Policy Implications
Indigenous tenants clearly do not respond to a ‘hands off’ approach of opening breach notices in the post—in fact, it is questionable whether many even read such notices. Setting ‘hard and fast’ rules and administering them from a distance will more likely lead to misunderstanding and barriers to behavioural change. The recognition space requires some negotiation, in between polarised institutional positions.

Positive impacts can be achieved when tenants and housing officers enter a recognition space where conditionalities can be negotiated. Successful negotiations require not only clear rules and conditionalities, but also the flexibility to contextualise and adapt to them. Different types of conditionalities need to be applied to different types of tenants. Generally, the conditionalities operating through housing policies are mostly coercive, with a clear absence of rewards or incentives. There are incentives operating in the system, however these were largely occurring informally in practice, under the radar of government reporting. There is clear opportunity for the housing conditionalities to incorporate more incentives to reward people for their efforts.
NV  - UQ
PB  - Australian Housing and Urban ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿Ú Institute Limited
PY  - 2016
RP  - The analysis of the tenant, government and Indigenous organisational perceptions showed that the three groups were often seeking different outcomes, leading to considerable misunderstanding and diversity of views. Although the project hypothesised the necessity of a recognition space, that did not mean it could always be found. There are entropies in Aboriginal lifeworlds, policy conditionalities and intermediary governance that powerfully hold the different groups back from engaging in discussion. There was, however, evidence of the recognition space occurring at times, with both corroding and sustaining influences.

Tenants and Departmental Housing Officers (DHOs) typically had divergent opinions on eligibility for social housing and tenant responsibilities, especially with the management of visitors. Similarly, tenants and DHOs viewed the systems of repairs and maintenance (R&M) differently, with tenants prioritising their own comfort and health and SHAs more focussed on cost efficiencies. Tenants had little understanding of their rights and responsibilities under their tenancy agreements or the formal notices sent to them. Furthermore, high rates of policy change and staff turnover in SHAs and intermediary organisations impeded opportunities for recognition spaces to form by limiting the development of trusting relationships.

In general, tenants emphasised the importance of family and kin relationships as well as cultural and historical connections to land. These relationships were highly significant forms of sociocultural capital, which were called on for support during times of need. The roles and responsibilities that tenants assumed under their tenancy agreements were occasionally at odds with these sociocultural responsibilities, especially when it came to accommodating visitors. By accommodating visitors, they themselves were entitled to visit others when needed, at times of financial or emotional stress, or during conflicts. Accommodating visitors did, at times result in anti-social behaviour (ASB), excessive alcohol consumption and damage to property. More commonly, however, visitations led to depleted finances, rental debts and household stress.

Tenancy management styles
The study looked specifically at good practice and principles for broader policy uptake. It identified the need for local implementation plans, based broadly on the existing consensus of achieving safe and secure housing for the tenants with the highest need. These plans could be developed using the principle of participatory planning and evaluation. This is where tenants, leaders and housing officers could come together to develop local policies for operationalising and implementing the conditionalities of housing policy, including local measures for assessing their effectiveness. The study identified a number of ideas that tenants generated themselves for how to improve tenancy management. Even the most disadvantaged tenants held views on how to manage other troubled tenants.

The potential for supporting good practice was also identified in the study in relation to strong women who were in leadership roles in their communities. The majority of head tenants were female and programs to support them and build their capacity were viewed as a constructive way to maintain tenancies and help stabilise families and their communities. The study also identified the following four main enablers of the recognition space.
à effective face-to-face communication
à stability and flexibility in frontline relationships
à at least some Indigenous staff in housing offices
à strong community governance structures.

From the observation and discussion of tenancy management styles across the study sites, the study has characterised two different types of conditionalities (negotiated and targeted) that are most likely to achieve positive housing outcomes. Negotiated conditionalities and targeted conditionalities are in contrast to the dominant coercive mode of conditionality in welfare and housing policy.

Negotiated conditionalities rely more on persuasion, assertive engagement and influence than on punitive coercion, as evidenced by the frontline workers in tenancy management. The realities faced by frontline workers were that many of punitive conditionalities were just not implementable. Evictions in the absence of alternatives can result in homelessness and goes contrary to their typical local ethos of helping the most disadvantaged tenants. It also carried the potential of political repercussion and, occasionally, threats of violence. Thus, in practice, frontline workers operate more in the realm of face-to-face persuasion, assertive engagement and influence than stand-off punitive coercion. The threat of eviction nonetheless appeared to be necessary to allow this negotiation to occur, and frontline housing officers would actively draw in the police and their more-senior departmental staff to reinforce it.

Targeted conditionalities, on the other hand, recognise the diversity in the tenant population and respond in a holistic way to the set of circumstances that define the tenant’s housing needs. Since people respond differently to different theories of change based on their particular circumstances, it may well be that a different kind of conditionality might be better suited to bring about the desired changes for this group.

Policy Implications
Indigenous tenants clearly do not respond to a ‘hands off’ approach of opening breach notices in the post—in fact, it is questionable whether many even read such notices. Setting ‘hard and fast’ rules and administering them from a distance will more likely lead to misunderstanding and barriers to behavioural change. The recognition space requires some negotiation, in between polarised institutional positions.

Positive impacts can be achieved when tenants and housing officers enter a recognition space where conditionalities can be negotiated. Successful negotiations require not only clear rules and conditionalities, but also the flexibility to contextualise and adapt to them. Different types of conditionalities need to be applied to different types of tenants. Generally, the conditionalities operating through housing policies are mostly coercive, with a clear absence of rewards or incentives. There are incentives operating in the system, however these were largely occurring informally in practice, under the radar of government reporting. There is clear opportunity for the housing conditionalities to incorporate more incentives to reward people for their efforts.
ST  - Indigenous lifeworlds, conditionality and housing outcomes
T2  - ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿ÚFinal Report No. 260
TI  - Indigenous lifeworlds, conditionality and housing outcomes
UR  - http://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/260
ID  - 727
ER  -