Housing and Mental Health Agreement - JGOS Replacement

There was evidence of good work happening in some areas and of many individuals with a strong commitment to helping people experiencing mental illness in their endeavours to live in the broader community. Unfortunately the overall implementation of JGOS has not produced its promised potential.

Twelve years later, and two major reworks of the Mental Health service delivery model, those individuals in need, and the public housing sector tenant community, are still experiencing negative impacts arising from unresolved mental health issues. In the interim the problem has been compounded by the NSW government’s Reshaping Public Housing Reforms announced in 2005, which, among other things, changed the criteria for granting of tenure. The new Allocations criteria created ghettos of absolute need occupied by people on fixed term leases. It completely altered the demographic of the public housing community. In doing so, it removed the capacity of the community to absorb and/or support those experiencing mental health issues.

The vehicle for the housing component of NSW’s service supply to those experiencing mental health issues centred around a particular housing provider, Housing NSW. With the current move to expand the Community Housing sector, another facet to the conundrum of effective supply of services for those experiencing mental health issues emerges.
The Community Housing sector operates under separate legislation to that of Housing NSW, and its membership consists of organisations that are legal identities in their own right. The following questions arise:

1. What is the relevance and applicability of the Housing and Mental Health Agreement, a HNSW initiative that replaces JGOS, to the Community Housing sector organisations and their tenant based communities?
2. What role, if any, will the Community Housing sector have in the provision of the housing component of service supply to those experiencing mental health issues?
3. How will that role be funded and delivered?

The worry, in the case of the Housing and Mental Health Agreement, is that the identified air-gap in JGOS between Plan development and physical service delivery at the coalface will be perpetuated in further endless rounds of consultation, taskforces, committees, and reviews. This circular process perpetuates the bureaucratic dogma that having a plan is the ultimate outcome. The Ombudsman has yet again flagged his concerns about this dogma with his request to Housing NSW and Health NSW for detailed advice and updates on the new Housing and Mental Health Agreement.

The still denied elephant in the room is the issue of where does the money to pay for the services come from. Health has historically enjoyed the free ride that Housing’s budget has supplied courtesy of Housing providing the accommodation for Health’s Rehabilitation services. The Department of Community Services has also enjoyed a free ride in that Housing has funded the provision of accommodation for their clients. Housing has had to move funds from its other programs to provide funding for its former JGOS obligations and its current Housing and Mental Health Agreement obligations, and their implementation. There is a strong case that Health and DoCs should pay Housing for services rendered from their budgets, which would enable Housing to utilise its own funds for its core business, the supply of secure affordable housing to the bottom end of the housing market.

What should be the sole outcome of the proposed Housing and Mental Health Agreement is the delivery of effective results at the coalface, so that good health can be enjoyed by both the community as an entity in its own right, and the individuals making up the community. The only question should be when will this happen, not who will facilitate process based discussion around delivery and implementation.

Ross Smith
Waterloo

Reference: www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/publication/PDF/specialreport/SpecialReport-JointGuaranteeOfService_Oct09.pdf

Source: The RIMFIRE Review is the weekly opinion publication of the National Tenant Support Network. It offers readers an opportunity to say what should be said, as distinct from what can be said, with anonymity, in  the public arena.  You are welcome to submit considered and robust opinion pieces for publication in the RIMFIRE Review, however, final editorial privilege will be vested in the Coordinator of the National TSN.  2007©RIMFIRE REVIEW.

The TSN provides a email service on housing and tenant issues tracking news stories on this issues of interest to tenants and people working in the field. To join the list contact TSN@thenexus.org.au Coordinator: Garry Mallard