REDWatch likely to oppose
Waterloo Master Plan
As part of the
Waterloo State Significant Precinct redevelopment, REDWatch and local agencies
pushed for a Human Services Plan to go alongside the built environment master
plan. In 2017 FACS / LAHC agreed such a plan would be undertaken.
In the email to
the FACS Executive requesting the plan, the bulk of which you can see at REDWatch
Request to FACS for Human Services Plan, REDWatch said “For REDWatch … time
is of the essence as we could not support a master plan for Waterloo without a
comprehensive human services plan accompanying it.”
As the
Department of Planning and LAHC negotiate an MOU process and the master plan
parameters, LAHC no longer wants to discuss a human services plan. The aim
seems to be to negotiate the new arrangements and then submit as quickly as
possible. The last 12 months that LAHC set aside for the human services
discussion has passed. What REDWatch feared looks set to happen. LAHC will put
up a Master Plan without a human services plan to sit alongside it.
REDWatch is not
looking for another human services plan add to our long list of Human
Services in Redfern and Waterloo: A potted history listing of plans,
interventions, activities, consultations and reports. We have made it clear
to LAHC and FACS that a successful plan has to understand why these previous
plans have not delivered for our community.
REDWatch has
argued extensively, as can be seen in the Waterloo Human
Service Plan part of our website that a human service plan needs to address
the existing human services challenges facing tenants and agencies, and not
just the service issues around the development relocation and post
redevelopment. Fixing the buildings does not address the challenges faced by
those living in buildings made up of people with increasingly complex issues
with little support.
Yes, this is an
issue across the state, but it will affect Waterloo disproportionally due to
the size of the estate and because the same number of public tenants will be
living with their existing problems in a redevelopment with three times greater
density than exists in the area at the moment.
Irrespective of
how good the master plan might be, if the issues facing the people who live
there now and into the future are not addressed in the Human Services Plan that
LAHC promised then it is looking like REDWatch will likely have to campaign
against the Master Plan.
Counterpoint release
Draft Waterloo Impact Project Report
The Waterloo
Impact Project explored local perceptions to establish what views existed
around the local client referral system and coordination between agencies, both
government and non-government, and the needs for any improvement. George
Barrett did a large number of interviews with service users, and both
government and non-government services. The draft report from the project is
available for further input. Download the report - DRAFT
- Waterloo Impact Project Mapping Local Client Referrals and Agency Services
Coordination
Broadly, the
recommendations entail:
- Addressing accessibility deficits by extending and
improving services to CALD, Aboriginal and other cohorts of the community,
- Improving the capabilities of residents to use
technologies and funding more place based outreach services to local
community centres,
- Improving service delivery and referral protocols, and
- Addressing cultural and structural issues within
agencies; both government and nongovernment.
The next agency
workshop to discuss the report is proposed for 24th February 2020
10:30 am at Inner Sydney Voice. Please save the date for now. If you would
like to be involved or have any questions please contact Adam Antonelli on 9698
9569 or email Counterpoint on info@counterpointcs.org.au.
Over the last
couple of years, NGOs have undertaken a number of data collection exercises to
provide input into improving human services. This is the latest, but previous
ones appear to be falling on deaf ears.
In the August
2018 Masterplan brochure LAHC said that LAHC’s focus for 2019 was to be
developing a Community Facilities Plan and a Human Services Plan. There has
been no movement on either of these crucial elements, and certainly the
consultations promised to services and tenants on these topics have not
eventuated.
There have
certainly been delays to the Master Plan because LAHC did not get its proposal
lodged in early 2019 and hence ran into the “state election caretaker period”,
the City of Sydney alternative proposal, the machinery of government changes,
staffing changes at the top of LAHC and then the handing of planning powers
back to the City.
While LAHC was
unable to progress the Masterplan it could have had the other crucial
consultations that were promised. It did not and there are no indications that
LAHC plans to consult on these matters prior to the master plan exhibition.
This has all the marks of acknowledging these are crucial issues but then
ignoring the issues to push ahead with the development.
Conversations
on both topics would have been assisted by public access to studies LAHC has
undertaken, but they have not been shared with the community. The first of
these is the Social Sustainability Study, which was not in the Metro Quarter
study requirements and hence no one has any idea of what might be in this
document until the master plan is exhibited. The second report supposedly
addresses consultant GHD’s greatly deficient Final Social Baseline Report for
Waterloo and looks at what is needed into the future.
Both these
reports should have been available as part of the proposed consultations with
the community. They were not released because while the Department of Planning
told REDWatch that LAHC could release these reports, LAHC were being told by
the Department that it did not want the reports released because they might
create confusion when it came to the formal exhibition. As we have pointed out
to LAHC the solution was very simple – change the report name or do an extract
and call it something else so there would not be confusion between two
documents of the same name!
The effect of
the non-release has been to deny the community important information about key
issues of that concern it. This does not excuse LAHC however from having the
conversations with the community that it promised. It could have done that
without either report. The community should have been involved in key
conversations about their community and its future and they have not been.
We do not know
what position Council might take as the new consent authority. Even if Council
was happy for LAHC to release these studies early, ultimately the decision is
up to LAHC. Based on practice to date we expect LAHC will push ahead to get the
master plan exhibited ASAP and try to kick the crucial community facilities and
human service plans down the road until the master plan is finalised and
awkward questions cannot stand in its way.
Adding salt
into the Community Facilities wound, is speculation about LAHC’s deal to get
the PCYC out of the Redfern site to maximise that development. At the Redfern
consultation, people were told PCYC needed a larger facility and that it would
be “within walking distance”. This is widely believed to means that LAHC is
already committed to bring an expanded PCYC into the Waterloo redevelopment in
closer competition with existing services at NCIE and potentially replacing
social services with a greater sport and recreation approach.
LAHC has to
consult with the community and services in the area about the future of
community facilities and service. Everyone needs to be assured that the
redevelopment will bring a robust social services plan and the necessary
facilities needed to support that plan.
REDWatch has
been pushing for improvements in the co-ordination of human services in Redfern
Waterloo for over 15 years and it looked like with the Waterloo redevelopment
there might have been some progress. We were assured by the then head of LAHC,
who was also a Deputy Secretary in FACS, that there would be a human service
plan to sit alongside the Waterloo master plan.
At that time,
LAHC was a part of FACS and we were assured that the proposal had the support
of the FACS executive. While we had initially approached FACS it had shown
little interest in the problem and so another part of FACS taking up the issue
seemed to cover off the bases, especially as we were told it was supported at
the highest levels within the department.
Since then LAHC
has been moved out of FACS into the Department of Planning and effectively
downgraded – the head of LAHC is no longer a Deputy Secretary. On top of this,
both the person who made the undertakings, as well as the person delegated to
develop the Human Services plan have both moved on following the LAHC
restructure. In the process, the commitment to a Human Services Plan for
Waterloo seems to have been lost.
LAHC was split
out from FACS between 2011 and 2013 and then reunited. This happened during the
last bout of master planning for Redfern and Waterloo. The experience and the
buck-passing was something we feared would be repeated when last year the
decision was made to move LAHC to the Department of Planning. On raising these
issues with the then head of LAHC, we were assured that everyone had learnt the
mistakes made last time and that Memorandums of Understanding were being
entered into between Ministers and Departmental Secretaries to make sure those
problems were not repeated. Six months on history is starting to repeat.
Previously
everything came out of the same budget bucket, now there needs to be clear
delineation between what LAHC is and what Department of Communities and Justice
(DCJ – previously FACS) is. Around human services discussions and aspects of
the Waterloo redevelopment, the lines between what was FACS and what was LAHC
were quite blurred. LAHC positions, for example, partly filled the hole left
when FACS ended the Housing Communities Program community development program
in Waterloo. Lines are now being more finely drawn between what is
redevelopment related what is something that DCJ should fund itself or do as
part of its arrangements with LAHC. The community is struggling to hold in
place some of the earlier arrangements.
The challenge
of improving human services for public housing tenants and addressing systemic
problems in the service system are particularly vulnerable in this split
because no one sees human services for tenants as being their responsibility
unless it fits into the tightly targeted early intervention policy or other
very specific programs.
For public
housing many of the problems are systemic across the state rather than related
just to Waterloo, even though with the re-development of Waterloo they will
become more acute. Within LAHC the work to date on the promised Human Service
Plan has been done outside the team responsible for the redevelopments. While
we were promised that we would be involved in this work, we have seen nothing
of substance for almost two years. A high level overview to the Waterloo
Redevelopment Group told people little and LAHC refused to release the
presentation.
One bit that
was useful were regular meetings set up with FACS to look at what could be some
small changes that might make a big difference. This was set up by LAHC with
the FACS District Director. Many of the issues we raised were considered by the
FACS District Director as things she wanted to see as “business as usual”
across the region and we agreed to model changes in Waterloo and then scale
them up across the district. Meetings were set up quarterly with the District
Director and key FACS and LAHC staff with monthly meetings with the FACS
Housing Director, the relevant Manager of Operational Services and the Waterloo
Team leader. This has given us a good insight into what roles FACS Housing
plays and does not play.
As time went on
and FACS personnel changed, we increasingly got the message that some people did
not know why they were involved or what the meetings were supposed to achieve.
These meetings are now in danger as DCJ District has asked the new LAHC
management why they are doing this. LAHC have responded that nothing needs to
happen until the future of the master plan is finalised.
As you can
imagine, REDWatch and the Groundswell agencies involved in these discussions
are very concerned, especially as we have been unable to meet with the new
senior LAHC management now calling these shots.
One of our initial
focuses with FACS / DCJ was around what happens during Client Service Visits
that might help connect tenants with any services they might need. These visits
are when FACS Housing visit tenants, check on their unit, and are in a position
to have a discussion with them. The meeting that is supposed to happen from
6-12 weeks after a new tenant moves in is particularly important.
From our
conversations and briefings, we have learnt that FACS Housing staff are not
trained to do even basic human service assessments and that asking questions
about any services a person might be having difficulty accessing is not in the
state-wide mandated app nor measured in their KPIs. FACS is mandated to look
out for any child protection issues, a question about NDIS coverage is asked,
and hording and squalor are obvious during inspections as they are a risk to
the property.
It appears as
if LAHC’s agreement with FACS Housing to manage its tenancies does not include
any human service function during a Client Services Visits. REDWatch has
previously pointed out that public housing Client Service Visits in the ACT
have four very specific human service support questions that are asked during a
visit. We have asked both DCJ District and LAHC why these are not a part of the
role LAHC asks DCJ Housing to undertake.
Putting human
service aspects into Client Service Visits seems to us to be a key element in
improving human service access for tenants. Other important elements include, a
welcoming attitude in the local FACS office and access to staff there who
can help people connect to the services they need.
The only way
human service questions would be possible at client service visits at the
moment would be if someone who was appropriately trained attended with client
service officers when they make their visits. While the client service officer
goes through the check list the other person could be asking how the tenant was
going, if they are having problem locating services etc. The problem of course
is that someone has to pay for that and if it is not mandated then it is not
likely to happen. This is especially so when the new departments are cutting
back on expenditure to deliver the promised savings from the mega
amalgamations.
The separation
of LAHC and FACS is highlighting some important systemic issues. The separation
means assumptions about who is supposed to do what are being challenged. With
the separation maybe it is the right time to think about a NSW upper house
inquiry into how human service supports for public housing tenants work or do
not work.
There has been
a lot of work recently getting homeless people into public housing. However, if
the supports are not there for those we put in public housing, are we really
addressing the problem? We cannot assume that just putting a roof over
someone’s head addresses his or her problems.
2020 is shaping
up to be another challenging year for Redfern and Waterloo.
]]>
