SERVICE INTEGRATION IN A REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS SERVICE SYSTEM Joint research project between Northern Rivers Social Development Council and Regional Futures.

SERVICE INTEGRATION IN A REGIONAL HOMELESSNESS SERVICE SYSTEM

Joint research project between Northern Rivers Social Development Council and Regional Futures Institute,

Southern Cross University.Funded under the National Homelessness Research

FundSee: www.fahcsia.gov.au

Research Questions:

1. What service integration models work in regional areas?

2. What are the barriers/service system gaps to be addressed to maximise regional service integration?

3. What is the potential for increased cross sector collaboration in a regional setting?

4. What aspects of the findings can be generalised to other non-metropolitan settings?

Acknowledgement

The most integrated service system is no substitute for an adequate supply of affordable housing and adequate resources

What Is Service Integration?

.....linking, collaborating, networking, coordinating, communicating, cooperating, connecting, interacting, sharing, partnering, working together.....

Service Integration - Great But...

– No single ‘model’ suits all situations– Considerable time and effort to establish

AND then to sustain– Costs before it saves– Not a panacea or an end in itself

Sometimes single agency responses are all that is needed

Not all services have to be equally ‘integrated’

Levels of Service Integration

Service level (BOTTOM UP – voluntary, operational)– Individual Worker relationships– Interagencies, sector training – Service level MOUs, referral protocol or other

agreed coordination practice

System level (TOP DOWN – mandated, structural)– shared systems, joint programs, pooled funds

Integrated Homelessness Service Delivery Models

Support only models –information exchange, referral protocols, case conferencing/coordination, crisis accommodation and support

Support + housing modelsFoyers, Common Ground, Rapid Housing

Survey results – 3 regions

56.7%

35%

8.3%

Service Connections

Clarence

Tweed

Richmond

What service system integration models work in regional areas?

28 examples cited – mix of service and system level, support-only and support +housing, multiple sector models

Identified models in research region – service level, houseless, single sector- info sharing, communication mechanisms,

some service level agreements

Critical factors for effective service integration (ranked)

1 Regular communication, networking; relationship building2 Partnership agreements and MOUs 3 Access to current service information 4 Access to housing

Willingness to work collaboratively Joint planning Access to and involvement of government services and personnel Coordinated case management and referral

5 Sector building capacity

Service integration requires (literature and respondents):

- Formal+informal mechanisms- System +service delivery level elements - Senior personnel with decision making authority- Multiple sectors

Asked the wrong questionPlace-relevant strategies (opps + limitations)Service availability, govt presence, geographic spread(services & users), transport, housing supply, localstrengths, local knowledge & exp., relationships

What barriers and service system gaps need to be addressed to maximise

service integration in a regional setting? • Knowledge of service system• Capacity for early intervention• Communication opportunities• Sector building capacity; facilitated coordination• Involvement of senior personnel, govt. &

mainstream agencies • Access to affordable housingRegional: absence of key services, p/t workforce, limited

transport, distance, cost of outreach, service size

What is the potential for increased cross sector collaboration in a regional setting?

• Limited acknowledgement of homelessness service system ‘membership’

• Examples at operational level only (not system level) • System functioning objectives and resources• Use of existing cross sector forums/networks and

local planning structures • Varies from region to region – opps and limitations

What aspects of the findings can be generalised to other non-metropolitan settings?

Caution against replication & generic responsesKey – responses built on place relevant

opportunities and limitations • Access to key services (Centrelink, social

housing providers, community centres)• Distance, access to transport, outreach

capacity• Service size, p/t workforce• Champions• Formal & informal networks, Valued

relationships

Thank youTrish Evans

Northern Rivers Social Development [email protected]

www.nrsdc.org.au