Mainstream housing and the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

Abstract

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability’s Final Report identified multiple barriers preventing people with disabilities in Australia from living in suitable housing, and from being able to choose where they live, with whom they live, and how they live. The issues discussed in the Report include tenancy insecurity, difficulties accessing social housing, difficulty finding physically accessible homes, poor response to high rates of homelessness among people with disabilities, and substandard housing and living conditions in supported boarding houses. Addressing these concerns, the Report makes a number of important recommendations that span a range of housing tenures and both housing and disability policies and strategies. Focusing primarily on “mainstream” housing options, where the majority of people with disabilities live, in this article I argue that if implemented, these recommendations will have a transformative impact on housing for people with disabilities, and on people with intellectual disabilities more specifically. However, I also argue that for this to happen, a new supply of affordable housing needs to be developed and delivered at scale, and note the Commission’s aversion from directly tackling this issue in its recommendations.

Keywords:

• Housing
• disability
• intellectual disability
• Royal Commission
• homelessness

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD, 2006) upholds the right of people with disabilities to live in suitable housing, and to choose where they live, with whom they live, and how they live. Framed by recognition of this right, the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability (the Commission) dedicated Chapters 8 and 9 in Part C, Volume 7, in its Final Report to housing (Commonwealth of Australia [CoA], 2023, Sept. 29, Vol. 7). Like other issues tackled by the Commission, housing is complex and multifaceted. It is intricately interconnected with the issues of violence, abuse, neglect, and exploitation of people with disabilities, their social inclusion, and the nature and quality of disability support services and practices.

In Chapter 8, the Commission’s Report describes the existing housing and living arrangements of people with disabilities, the policy and regulatory frameworks underpinning these housing conditions, and the evidence the Commission collected on the housing experiences of people with disabilities. The Report offers a set of recommendations to improve people with disabilities’ access to secure, appropriate, and safe homes and fulfill their rights. The focus of Chapter 9 is on the future of group homes, and the question of whether the model can be salvaged and improved, or whether it needs to be phased out. This question has been one of the more controversial aspects of the Report, and Chapter 9 has been reviewed elsewhere in this Special Issue (Bigby, 2024). In this article, I focus primarily on Chapter 8 and “mainstream” housing options, where the vast majority of people with disabilities live. I review some of the housing matters tackled by the Commission, and argue that if implemented, its recommendations will have a transformative impact on housing for people with disabilities. However, I also highlight what I consider to be a significant omission in the Commission Report’s analysis: its limited attention to the massive shortfall in supply of affordable housing, and its aversion from directly tackling this issue in its recommendations.

Like many other chapters in the Commission’s Report, Part C of Volume 7 is largely dedifferentiated (Bigby, 2020) (i.e., it often refers to people with disabilities as a single group, with relatively few references to different types of impairment and disability). Where possible, in my analysis in this article, I will try to tease out issues that are specific to people with intellectual disabilities.

The article is structured as follows. The following section offers a very brief overview of the key issues and recommendations in the Commission’s Report. Then each section tackles a specific issue discussed by the Commission: recognition of people with disabilities in housing policy; homelessness among people with disabilities; secure occupancy; social housing; and supported boarding houses. The article concludes with some critical reflections on the question of affordable housing supply as a missing element in the Commission’s Report.

Overview of issues and recommendations

The Report identified multiple barriers preventing people with disabilities in Australia from living in suitable housing, and from being able to choose where they live, with whom they live, and how they live. The issues discussed in the Report include tenancy insecurity, difficulties accessing social housing, difficulty finding physically accessible homes, poor response to high rates of homelessness among people with disabilities, and substandard housing and living conditions in supported boarding houses. Addressing these concerns, the Report makes a number of recommendations, which can be briefly summarised as follows:

• including people with disabilities as a priority group in all key national housing and homelessness agreements and planning, including strategies, policies, and action plans;

• increasing the supply of accessible and adaptive housing for people with disabilities through the National Construction Code. Minimum accessibility standards have been incorporated into the National Construction code in 2021. All jurisdictions except New South Wales and Western Australia have committed to adopting the new standards in the code, and the Commission recommended that New South Wales and Western Australia should do so too. These standards concern primarily mobility restrictions associated with physical impairments. Accessibility standards affect many people who experience both physical and intellectual disabilities, due to high incidence of comorbidity (Liao et al., 2021);

• increasing access to social housing for people with disabilities by changes to policies on housing allocation, making the application process more accessible, and enabling physical modifications to enhance the accessibility of social housing stock;

• increasing secure occupancy protections for people with disabilities through changes to residential tenancy legislation and other regulatory frameworks; in particular, this concerns changes to current legislation that enables “no grounds” eviction of private renters (with or without disabilities);

• improving regulatory oversight in supported boarding-house accommodation settings (such as Supported Residential Services in Victoria, and equivalent services in other jurisdictions) by improving and monitoring minimum quality and service standards;

• improved responses to high rates of homelessness among people with disabilities, by applying both preventative and responsive approaches. This includes expansion of the Housing First model that address homelessness through provision of permanent supportive housing where access is not conditional on being “housing ready”.

In the following Sections I elaborate on some of these issues and recommendations and draw attention to limitations in the Commission analysis.

Recognising people with disabilities as a priority group in housing policy

In its review of Australia’s key housing and homelessness policies and strategies, the Commission rightly observed that there is no recognition of people with disabilities as a priority group in these policies, despite overwhelming evidence on the unmet housing needs and significant housing disadvantage experienced by people with disabilities. At the same time, the Report also correctly identifies the inadequate treatment of homelessness in disability policy frameworks and strategies.

To address these oversights, the Commission recommended (Commonwealth of Australia (CoA), 2023, Sept. 29, Rec.7.33) that key national housing and homelessness approaches explicitly recognise people with disabilities as a priority group for housing and homelessness reforms, including naming specific outcomes for people with disabilities that are to be monitored and evaluated (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 552). Doing so is likely to have significant implications for people with disabilities in matters such as allocations of social housing, and in developing specific policies that tackle some of the other issues addressed in the Report, which I will discuss below. However, as I argue later, becoming one other priority group in the competition for a scarce resource (i.e., social and affordable housing) is a very partial and flawed solution. There is a need for more affordable housing options available for all priority groups.

Homelessness

People with disabilities experience high risk of homelessness. Much attention has been given in literature and policy to the strong relationship between homelessness and psychosocial disability; however, people with intellectual disabilities are also over-represented in the homeless population, including people with both psychosocial and intellectual disabilities. In particular, young people with intellectual disabilities are at very high risk of homelessness when leaving out-of-home care (Beer et al., 2011). The Commission cited the Australian Bureau of Statistics data showing that on census night, 2021, of people aged under 65 years with severe or profound disabilities, 4,792 were homeless, and 3,457 were marginally housed. It further highlighted that Indigenous people with disabilities are at significantly higher risk of homelessness.

However, the Commission did acknowledge the inadequacy of data collected on homelessness among people with disabilities, and the current work already underway to improve data collection (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 549). Presenting striking evidence on the inadequacy of existing homelessness support services, the Commission Report cited data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) indicating that 44% of people with disabilities accessing homelessness services are homeless when they enter these services, and 34% remain homeless when they exit these services (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 594). For example, emergency and transitional accommodation are crucial responses to homelessness. However, the Commission’s Report identified the challenges for people with disabilities in finding suitable accessible emergency accommodation. Among others, this impacts on women with disabilities wishing to leave situations of domestic violence. The Commission heard evidence on victims who were forced to remain in violent situations; in other cases, reported by witnesses, people were hospitalised for extended time periods (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 556). The evidence illustrates the direct relationship between the inadequacy of homelessness support and violence against people with disabilities.

Despite the evidence of high-risk for people with disabilities, the Commission rightly identifies the neglect of homelessness in disability policies and strategies. Furthermore, it notes that in major national programs to address homelessness, there is no funding specifically allocated for people with disabilities. Directly addressing this failure in existing policies, the Commission recommends (CoA, 2923, Sept. 29, Rec. 7.34) to include homelessness in Australia’s Disability Strategy as a policy priority within the “Inclusive Homes and Communities” key outcomes (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 553).

The Report considers both preventative and responsive approaches to address homelessness of people with disabilities. Preventative or “early intervention” approaches target specific conditions where the risk of homelessness increases dramatically, such as when people are released from hospital or correctional facilities. The Report recommends establishing a lead agency responsible for developing and implementing individual plans for people with disabilities in high-risk situations to ensure their successful transition into secure housing.

A more responsive approach mentioned in the Report is the provision of intensive person-centred supports for people to effectively transition from homelessness into secure housing (CoA, 2023, p. 594). The Report also recommends adopting Housing First models as a response to homelessness. Housing First models focus on providing homeless people rapid access to permanent housing that is not conditional on having other support services already in place, or being “housing ready” (for instance, a person will not be denied housing until they had resolved their substance addiction, or until they had secured other mental health or disability support services). The Report notes that Housing First is widely considered “best practice” in addressing homelessness, and homelessness among people with complex needs in particular. Indeed, there is much evidence to support this view (Peng et al., 2020).

While I agree that there is much to commend about the Housing First approach to homelessness, and homelessness among people with disabilities in particular, it is far from a perfect solution and in some important respects, its implementation sometimes represents a step backward rather than forward in relation to housing for people with disabilities. Permanent Supportive Housing facilities in Australia follow the Housing First principles, and provide rapid access to permanent housing to people – many of them people with disabilities – that is not conditional on being “housing ready”. But recent work on the experience of people with disabilities in one Permanent Supportive Housing facility in Melbourne has pointed to the congregate, institutional nature of the facility. Residents with disabilities interviewed by David et al. (2022) reported ongoing exposure to violence and abuse, often by other residents within the facility, and inadequate support. Considering that violence and abuse are at the centre of the Commission’s Inquiry, its unequivocal endorsement of such models and lack of attention to the risks is worrying. While I support the Housing First principles, the implementation of this approach through large congregate, institution-like facilities and without adequate support, is highly problematic. Importantly, the Report acknowledged the lack of safe, appropriate, and affordable housing as the primary driver of homelessness (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 593); yet its recommendations did not address this underlying issue.

Secure occupancy

A sense of security at home is multi-layered, and comprises both elements of physical safety and security at home, and the psychosocial dimensions such as privacy, emotional security, and a sense of constancy (often referred to as ontological security). One element of housing security is security of tenure, which takes a property-rights lens, and concerns occupants’ legal rights over their homes, including their level of control over the length of their occupancy. This includes the question about the conditions under which landlords (whether private landlords, or community housing providers or state housing authorities in social housing) have a right to evict tenants, and what protections are granted to tenants under legislation (Hulse & Milligan, 2014). The Commission acknowledged that “Having secure housing is particularly important for people with disabilities. It can facilitate social participation and inclusion, access to employment opportunities, access to education and training, and the ability to make adjustments to the home” (CoA, 2023, p. 565).

Different regulations impact the security of tenants in different forms of housing: private rental, social housing, specialist disability accommodation (SDA), boarding houses, and caravan parks. In private rental, one key issue is landlords’ ability to enact “no-grounds eviction” of tenants with a periodic tenancy agreement, or at the end of a fixed-term tenancy agreement. Other than a minimum period of time to give notice before eviction, the legislation in most states offers little protection or recognition of renters’ need for a secure home. Addressing this issue, the Commission recommends that the legislation in all Australian jurisdictions should require landlords to demonstrate a good reason for terminating any tenancy of residential accommodation, whether that tenancy be periodic or for a fixed term. Further, where eviction is premised on a tenant’s breach of a tenancy agreement, the Commission recommended that the tribunal assessing the termination order should consider a tenant’s disability, where applicable.

People residing in boarding or rooming houses (including supported boarding houses such as Supported Residential Services in Victoria), and even residents of group homes experience even greater insecurity of occupancy, because such premises are excluded from the residential tenancies legislation that grants some protections – even if limited – to private renters. Proprietors can evict residents at will, and there is no clear definition in legislation of how much notice they should offer, other than a vague statement that the notice should be “reasonable”. To improve secure occupancy in boarding-style accommodation, the Commission recommended changes to the legislation covering such dwellings, to make them clearer on the minimal notice time on tenancy termination. The Commission also recommended that when disputes on termination are taken to tribunals, that these should consider tenants’ disability where applicable.

These are all important and sensible recommendations that seek to address not only the needs of tenants with disabilities, but a much larger structural problem of weak tenant protections in Australia’s legislation. These changes will be beneficial for renters with and without disabilities. However, it is important to distinguish between “de facto” (in practice) and “de jure” (by legal rights) security of occupancy. Legal protections, such as those recommended by the Commission, improve de jure security of tenure. However, more meaningful de facto security of occupancy – actual control exercised by people over their homes, including the length of their occupancy – depends on a much wider set of factors, including legislation and regulation, government policies, market factors, cultural norms, and the practices of diverse actors (Hulse & Milligan, 2014, p. 643). Where there is inadequate supply of affordable rental homes, private renters will continue to experience insecure tenancies even when legal protections are strengthened. For example, a longer notice before termination of a rental tenancy is helpful, providing more time to seek out an alternative accommodation; but having sufficient suitable alternative options of accommodation after eviction is just as important, if not more, in providing meaningful protection from homelessness, and a de facto security in housing.

Social housing

Social housing in Australia provides affordable homes for people on low incomes. This includes both public housing managed by state governments, and community housing managed (and sometimes also owned) by not-for-profit organisations. In 2021, approximately 417,800 households lived in social housing in Australia, representing 4.2 per cent of all households. This proportion has declined dramatically over the last few decades, and growing waiting lists for social housing (175,000 households in June 2021) indicate the sheer scale of unmet need, and severe shortfall in supply of social housing. Approximately 36% of households in social housing include at least one person with a disability – twice as high as their proportion of the total population, but still well below the level of need for social housing among people with disabilities (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 545).

The Commission cites the UNCRPD, which explicitly requires signatory countries to take measures to ensure people with disabilities have equal access to public housing programs. It also recognises the importance of access to social housing to “ensure that people with disabilities are not housed in an environment where they are at heightened risk of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation” (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 563).

The Commission identified multiple barriers people with disabilities face in the process of applying for social housing, in the way social housing vacancies are allocated, and in the design of social housing units and ability to modify them. The Commission’s recommendations concern measures to address these barriers, including to ensure that “policy and procedure documents about the allocation of social housing and the social housing offer process are published in accessible formats” (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 563). While I fully support this recommendation, it is important to acknowledge that an accessible application form is of little value if it only leads to indefinite wait on the waitlist. Consider the evidence presented before the Commission by people with disabilities sharing experiences of long waiting times for social housing, then having to accept an “offer” of a social housing unit that was inaccessible and inappropriate, fearing they would otherwise be removed from the waiting list while having no other housing option (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 556). The issue here is not the inaccessible format of application forms, rather the insufficient supply of social housing properties, and the punitive approach to management of waiting lists and social housing offers (an approach, which also derives to a large extent from the scarcity of social housing).

Supported boarding houses

The Commission collected evidence about a lack of safety for people with disabilities living in boarding house–style supported accommodation. The terminology used to describe such facilities varies across jurisdictions. For example, in Victoria these are called Supported Residential Services (SRSs); in New South Wales, assisted boarding houses; in South Australia, supported residential facilities (SRFs); In Queensland, Level 3 Accredited Residential Services. Residents include people with varied and complex support needs due to a disability, mental ill health, or age-related conditions. Regulations overseeing supported boarding houses vary across jurisdictions. In 2018, 79 per cent of the 3,142 SRS residents in Victoria had a disability (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 582; equivalent figures were not presented for other jurisdictions).

The evidence shows that complex needs of residents with disabilities are not being adequately met in such facilities. It also points to substandard housing conditions, including safety hazards. The Report comments on the institutionalised nature of supported boarding houses, with restricted choice and control for residents, lack of personal space or privacy, and “appalling conditions” in many (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 581). Support plans for residents were developed by proprietors with no input from residents. These plans were not reviewed regularly and provided only “vague” description on the nature of supports required (CoA, 2023, p. 584). These findings concur with academic studies and previous inquiries that have highlighted these types of facilities as an overlooked, privatised form of a “total institution” for people with disabilities (Dearn et al., 2023; Drake, 2014; Drake & Herbert, 2015), including people with intellectual disabilities, challenging a narrative suggesting deinstitutionalsation has been fully completed in Australia.

The Commission recommended minimum standards should be reviewed and strengthened in each jurisdiction, across a range of domains such as support planning, record keeping on service provision, processes for complaint and incident management, and access to independent advocacy services. Importantly, the Report also recommends advocacy to assist residents transition out of supported boarding houses into alternative and better-quality accommodation. Yet, again, ability to transition depends not only on plans, but also on availability of alternative options.

Final reflections: transformative recommendations with a big hole

The Commission delivered a landmark Report that connects housing policy and disability policy in a way that no other government report has done before. The analysis is comprehensive, tackling a wide range of housing issues across mainstream and specialist housing, in both the private and public sectors. The Commission has made ambitious, even bold, recommendations, seeking to tackle fundamental flaws in Australia’s housing system that affect people with disabilities, as well as other disadvantaged people. For example, if adopted, the recommendation to revise residential tenancy legislation will positively impact private renters both with and without disabilities. It is an agenda that housing advocates have long pursued, and the Commission’s Report provides significant support.

I agree with all the Commission’s recommendations, but I am concerned about its uncritical endorsement of permanent supportive housing models in responses to homelessness. Here I feel the Commission overlooked some serious problems in the implementation of Housing First approaches in the form of congregate housing facilities, where people with disabilities are exposed to violence and abuse. We need to develop alternative approaches to implementing the Housing First principles in non-congregate housing.

My other concern relates to the question of affordable housing supply, and unmet housing need. Given the quasi-judicial nature of the Commission, it is not surprising that many of the Report’s recommendations lean towards legal reform, rather than housing development programs and subsidies. Issues such as legislation concerning tenancy rights or accessibility standards received more comprehensive and nuanced discussion than others. However, when housing options are scarce, the effects of legislated rights are restricted.

The Commission’s Report does acknowledge the need for more housing choices for people with disabilities. Recommendation 7.42, "Improve access to alternative housing options” (CoA, 2023, Sept. 29, p. 638), addresses this issue as part of its discussion on the future of group homes, in Chapter 9. But the issue is framed in qualitative terms – the need for more diversity in the forms of housing available – as opposed to the quantitative consideration of whether the supply of housing is enough to meet demand.

It is clearly far from enough. The scale of unmet need for affordable housing for people with disabilities is unsettling. A decade ago, the National Disability Insurance Agency estimated unmet need for affordable housing for 83,000 to 122,000 National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) participants at full scheme rollout (Bonyhady, 2014). A similar Figure (110,000) was suggested by the Disability Housing Futures Working Group (2016), using a different methodology. The NDIS is likely to have more accurate and up-to-date data on unmet need based on participants’ plans. For the Commission’s important recommendations to have meaningful effect, to move from de jure to de facto impact, they must be supported by adequate supply of social and affordable housing and dedicated Federal and state funding into housing development programs designed to close this shortfall in social and affordable housing.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).