TY  - RPRT
AU  - Hulse, Kath
AU  - Saugeres, Lise
CY  - Melbourne
DA  - November 
L1  - internal-pdf://0615754071/AHURI_Final_Report_No124 Housing insecurity an.pdf
M1  - 50361
M3  - FR
N1  - The aim of this report was to understand the ways in which ‘housing insecurity’ and other insecurities can create a ‘precarious living’ environment in lower income renters in Australia. This study was undertaken at two stages, the first stage was creating a conceptual understanding of housing security/insecurity for renters, with respect to topics like, insecurity and security, surveillance by landlords, inability to plan ahead
and social expectations. The second stage of this report was able to explore these topics and themes by using qualitative data from two prior ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿Úresearch projects. While the first stage of this research project used pre-existing literature, the evidence base for the second stage was built on two different data sets; the first was life history interviews with 105 participants (71 women and 32 men). These participants were recruited in Victoria and NSW via local community organisations, support agencies, advertisements in community newspapers and local radio stations. Sixty-four participants were renting privately while receiving Rent Assistance and 41 were renting in public and community housing sectors. The second data set for the second stage of this report was a qualitative study comprising of interviews from 40 participants, 20 of which had various disabilities and the other twenty were carers of people with disabilities. Participants in this sample group were all from Victoria, 11 the disability participants were renting public or community housing, 1 was living in a private rental, 7 participants owned or were purchasing their house and 1 was participant was living with their parents. Of the carers sample, the majority (16) owned or were buying their properties, 2 were renting public housing and 2 were living with family. Key themes explored with these two groups were family history, education, employment, housing histories, housing insecurities and constraints on housing choice for people with disabilities.
This report provides conceptual qualifications for their measure of ‘housing insecurity’. Unlike Yates et al.’s (2007) ‘housing stress’ measure which is based on a quantitative evaluation of the interaction between income and housing costs. Hulse & Saugeres’ (2008) ‘housing insecurity’ is based on the theoretical concept of ‘ontological security’ which essential describes the individual’s need for:
A sense of continuity and constancy in everyday life (ontological security) to enable a stable mental state (Hulse & Saugeres 2008 12).6
Recognising that there is a gap in Australian literature on the differences between ontological security in home purchasers and renters, Hulse and Saugeres (2008) reviewed international literature and found that a sense of ontological security was not limited to home owners. In relation to maintaining ontological security in a housing context the most important factors are:
Having a safe place of one’s own in which the routines of daily life can be established, privacy can be negotiated, and where there is a secure base from which to engage in social interactions based on trust which enable self-esteem to be enhanced and self-identity to be maintained (Hulse & Saugeres 2008 13).
Unlike the quantitative term ‘housing stress’, the interaction between ontological security and housing notes that that housing insecurity is characterised by psycho-social factors, physical conditions and relationships. In summation it gives voice to the qualitative experience of housing insecurity that is not captured by the term ‘housing stress’. Drawing on the ontological concept Hulse & Saugeres (2008) identify six key factors of housing insecurity used as a measure for their qualitative analysis. These key factors are mobility, housing instability, lack of privacy (within, between and outside the dwelling), feeling unsafe (both inside and outside the dwelling), lack of belonging and lack of physical comfort.
Participants in this study were low-income renters, therefore, all findings relate back to rental tenure. Hulse and Saugeres (2008) preface their research by noting that the rental market in Australia provides only short term leases (6-12 months in Victoria and NSW), therefore, inherently renting has little security for the renter, this is exacerbated by renters in low–moderate income brackets who are unable to purchase a house and unable to enter into public housing. The control they have over their housing is small, this is reflected by Yates et al.’s (2007) study of Australian housing which identifies
6 This concept was developed by Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing in 1960 and furthered by Giddens in 1984 (Hulse & Saugeres 2008).

low income renters as the most housing stressed Australians. One participant in this present study articulates the insecurity of experienced by low income earners renting privately and the power that landlords have over rental prices:
So they sold it [the house], put up $300 and I was out. Then I moved to another place where I am now – same thing happen, and the agents come to me and say, ‘All the houses in the area are having rental at $300 a week, so yours must go up too’. Never mind that my toiletries are outside, the roof leaks in three rooms, but the rent must go up, and there’s no law to secure that for me (Hulse & Saugeres 2008 20)
The first indicator of housing insecurity mobility was experienced by the vast majority of interview participants, those who had high levels of mobility due to reasons beyond their control explained high mobility as a housing security. Changes in housing situation which are beyond the control of the renter are deemed by Hulse and Saugeres (2008) to be housing instability. The majority of participants also reported experiencing housing instability, this was particularly rent tenure specific, as participants did not feel secure with the knowledge that landlords could increase their rents or sell their houses at their leisure. For this reason evidence indicated that participants saw a level of stability in public housing as the rent was secure and there was no landlord. However, this is not always an option for those in the low–moderate income range.
The third indicator of housing insecurity feeling unsafe was mostly reported by people who were living in public housing and those who had left abusive relationships and were in fear of their former partners. The fourth indicator lack of belonging was often characterised by a lack of connectedness to the local community and a lack of family in the area. Lack of belonging was also heightened in areas outside of metropolitan Victoria and NSW particularly where there was little public transport. This lack of belonging needs to be taken into account as a consequence rising housing prices and the subsequent move to cheaper outer city suburbs. Lack of comfort due to low incomes was also experienced by participants with their home environments often being of poor quality due to the cost of repairs and maintenance as was Lack of Privacy in public housing areas and shared houses.
Overall, analysis of participant interviews demonstrated that all six indicators of housing insecurity: mobility, instability, lack of privacy, lack of safety, lack or belonging and lack of comfort were experienced by this group. While each of these indicators was experienced at different levels there were often relationships between them. The common structural reasons for housing insecurity were highlighted by participants as: gaps in the low income rental market, low incomes, large waiting lists for public housing and short term leases in the private sector.
Hulse and Saugeres (2008) outline four major policy implications as a result of the evidence on the characteristics of renting for low income earners. Firstly, they note that the policies need to address housing security for low income renters by implementing policies which address housing affordability and security. Increased legislative and policy focus on the social inclusion impacts of insecure housing, those who are vulnerable at home and particularly overall housing insecurities faced by low income earners.
NV  - Swinburne-Monash
PB  - australian Housing and Urban ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿Ú Institute Limited
PY  - 2008
RP  - The aim of this report was to understand the ways in which ‘housing insecurity’ and other insecurities can create a ‘precarious living’ environment in lower income renters in Australia. This study was undertaken at two stages, the first stage was creating a conceptual understanding of housing security/insecurity for renters, with respect to topics like, insecurity and security, surveillance by landlords, inability to plan ahead
and social expectations. The second stage of this report was able to explore these topics and themes by using qualitative data from two prior ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿Úresearch projects. While the first stage of this research project used pre-existing literature, the evidence base for the second stage was built on two different data sets; the first was life history interviews with 105 participants (71 women and 32 men). These participants were recruited in Victoria and NSW via local community organisations, support agencies, advertisements in community newspapers and local radio stations. Sixty-four participants were renting privately while receiving Rent Assistance and 41 were renting in public and community housing sectors. The second data set for the second stage of this report was a qualitative study comprising of interviews from 40 participants, 20 of which had various disabilities and the other twenty were carers of people with disabilities. Participants in this sample group were all from Victoria, 11 the disability participants were renting public or community housing, 1 was living in a private rental, 7 participants owned or were purchasing their house and 1 was participant was living with their parents. Of the carers sample, the majority (16) owned or were buying their properties, 2 were renting public housing and 2 were living with family. Key themes explored with these two groups were family history, education, employment, housing histories, housing insecurities and constraints on housing choice for people with disabilities.
This report provides conceptual qualifications for their measure of ‘housing insecurity’. Unlike Yates et al.’s (2007) ‘housing stress’ measure which is based on a quantitative evaluation of the interaction between income and housing costs. Hulse & Saugeres’ (2008) ‘housing insecurity’ is based on the theoretical concept of ‘ontological security’ which essential describes the individual’s need for:
A sense of continuity and constancy in everyday life (ontological security) to enable a stable mental state (Hulse & Saugeres 2008 12).6
Recognising that there is a gap in Australian literature on the differences between ontological security in home purchasers and renters, Hulse and Saugeres (2008) reviewed international literature and found that a sense of ontological security was not limited to home owners. In relation to maintaining ontological security in a housing context the most important factors are:
Having a safe place of one’s own in which the routines of daily life can be established, privacy can be negotiated, and where there is a secure base from which to engage in social interactions based on trust which enable self-esteem to be enhanced and self-identity to be maintained (Hulse & Saugeres 2008 13).
Unlike the quantitative term ‘housing stress’, the interaction between ontological security and housing notes that that housing insecurity is characterised by psycho-social factors, physical conditions and relationships. In summation it gives voice to the qualitative experience of housing insecurity that is not captured by the term ‘housing stress’. Drawing on the ontological concept Hulse & Saugeres (2008) identify six key factors of housing insecurity used as a measure for their qualitative analysis. These key factors are mobility, housing instability, lack of privacy (within, between and outside the dwelling), feeling unsafe (both inside and outside the dwelling), lack of belonging and lack of physical comfort.
Participants in this study were low-income renters, therefore, all findings relate back to rental tenure. Hulse and Saugeres (2008) preface their research by noting that the rental market in Australia provides only short term leases (6-12 months in Victoria and NSW), therefore, inherently renting has little security for the renter, this is exacerbated by renters in low–moderate income brackets who are unable to purchase a house and unable to enter into public housing. The control they have over their housing is small, this is reflected by Yates et al.’s (2007) study of Australian housing which identifies
6 This concept was developed by Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing in 1960 and furthered by Giddens in 1984 (Hulse & Saugeres 2008).

low income renters as the most housing stressed Australians. One participant in this present study articulates the insecurity of experienced by low income earners renting privately and the power that landlords have over rental prices:
So they sold it [the house], put up $300 and I was out. Then I moved to another place where I am now – same thing happen, and the agents come to me and say, ‘All the houses in the area are having rental at $300 a week, so yours must go up too’. Never mind that my toiletries are outside, the roof leaks in three rooms, but the rent must go up, and there’s no law to secure that for me (Hulse & Saugeres 2008 20)
The first indicator of housing insecurity mobility was experienced by the vast majority of interview participants, those who had high levels of mobility due to reasons beyond their control explained high mobility as a housing security. Changes in housing situation which are beyond the control of the renter are deemed by Hulse and Saugeres (2008) to be housing instability. The majority of participants also reported experiencing housing instability, this was particularly rent tenure specific, as participants did not feel secure with the knowledge that landlords could increase their rents or sell their houses at their leisure. For this reason evidence indicated that participants saw a level of stability in public housing as the rent was secure and there was no landlord. However, this is not always an option for those in the low–moderate income range.
The third indicator of housing insecurity feeling unsafe was mostly reported by people who were living in public housing and those who had left abusive relationships and were in fear of their former partners. The fourth indicator lack of belonging was often characterised by a lack of connectedness to the local community and a lack of family in the area. Lack of belonging was also heightened in areas outside of metropolitan Victoria and NSW particularly where there was little public transport. This lack of belonging needs to be taken into account as a consequence rising housing prices and the subsequent move to cheaper outer city suburbs. Lack of comfort due to low incomes was also experienced by participants with their home environments often being of poor quality due to the cost of repairs and maintenance as was Lack of Privacy in public housing areas and shared houses.
Overall, analysis of participant interviews demonstrated that all six indicators of housing insecurity: mobility, instability, lack of privacy, lack of safety, lack or belonging and lack of comfort were experienced by this group. While each of these indicators was experienced at different levels there were often relationships between them. The common structural reasons for housing insecurity were highlighted by participants as: gaps in the low income rental market, low incomes, large waiting lists for public housing and short term leases in the private sector.
Hulse and Saugeres (2008) outline four major policy implications as a result of the evidence on the characteristics of renting for low income earners. Firstly, they note that the policies need to address housing security for low income renters by implementing policies which address housing affordability and security. Increased legislative and policy focus on the social inclusion impacts of insecure housing, those who are vulnerable at home and particularly overall housing insecurities faced by low income earners.
ST  - Housing insecurity and precarious living: an Australian exploration
T2  - ÂþÌìÌÃÈë¿ÚFinal Report No. 124
TI  - Housing insecurity and precarious living: an Australian exploration
UR  - /research/final-reports/124
ID  - 171
ER  -