Providing ongoing support

When a gap in services was identified, the case manager accepted the responsibility for the provision of that particular service. Focus group participants indicated the value for those involved in the HSP was working alongside those working in existing homeless services to ensure clients received organisational support while the clients began the process of settling into their new accommodation. Focus group participants highlighted this lack of support from other organisations as an issue:

There [are] lots of gaps in the support for people and often they go back to that situation again [being homeless] because they didn’t have the intense case management and support as our HSP. (FG5) Similarly, focus group participants described how, in contrast to other service provision, the case managers were able to provide continuity of care. The care for the clients was sustained by the on-going support of that care.

The coordination and consistency of care for so many people are being lost to just a quick fix. Then they’ve got the same problem six months later. At least with this HSP, it’s actually maintaining and continuing the care. (FG1)

133 Similarly, the case managers were adamant that the clients needed to be helped and supported in understanding what to do about their situation, particularly when other organisations were unavailable.

A lot of them were already [living] in squalor and there was nobody that you could even talk to, to support the clients, to figure out what to do with them. A lot of them had rent arrears, unpaid bills, the places were ill maintained, and when you’d say, look, you need to ring Department of Housing, they’d go, oh, look, I’ve rung that number and I never get them – it was just too hard for them. (CM2)

5.3.1.2 Theme 2: Bridging the gap

The second theme was ‘Bridging the Gap’ between services for the client. ‘Bridging the Gap’ was exemplified in the sub-themes: establishing collaborative partnerships; working towards a common goal; and initiating proactive interventions. Service providers have all clearly established criteria for accepting the clients into particular programs. For example, some criteria stipulate that a client must be within a particular age range or comes from a defined geographical location. Other criteria may focus on mental health issues or medical problems. While many clients will meet the criteria, there are many who do not, and therefore they cannot be offered an assistance package. A case manager supported by the focus group participants indicated that regardless of whether or not the client meets certain criteria the HSP accepted these clients.

There has never been a program that the [specific] client was able to fit into. She's been in other programs but it’s like ‘she really shouldn't

134 be because this doesn’t fit her. There are no other programs’. We have to have her as a client, as a preventative measure because she is so at risk of losing her tenancy. (CM2)

Many of the clients accepted by the HSP had either been rejected by other organisations or accepted then later rejected by the same organisations. Reasons included clients’ behavioural issues or the inability to provide services to meet the complex needs of clients. Two Focus group participants reported:

The Housing Support Program will take on clients that no other services will touch with a 10-foot pole… It’s a very needy demographic area that they’re covering. (FG3)

Housing support take on people that nobody else wants to take on because of either medical problems, dementia or mental illness as well. They just need so much time that there was a huge gap. (FG5) While many clients were receiving services/packages from organisations such as Department of Housing or mental health teams, medical assistance or drug and alcohol services, many other services were also required. The case managers were able to identify gaps in service provision and to close these gaps by providing services such as early intervention strategies, follow up and coordination of a variety of other services. These services were essential to prevent clients losing their tenancy.

Focus group participants commented that the HSP was different to other service providers in that: it was the ability of those working in the HSP to

135 be flexible with their acceptance criteria, to be able to identify additional support services, to provide a wide range of services and to coordinate services. Their perspective of the program was that this was a unique service. Acceptance into the program was also one of the main reasons why ‘at risk’ clients maintained their tenancy.

We’ve got lots of clients that have been at risk and really the only way that they’ve kept their tenancy is with the support of [those working in] the HSP. It’s an invaluable service to us… (FG1)

Without [those working in] the HSP there would be no one to pick up the gap… (FG2)