Are proprietors of supported residential services (SRS) the right people to support residents into better housing?
In today’s post, Dr Elroy Dearn (@lizdearn) discusses the findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission into violence, abuse and neglect and exploitation of people with disability relating to Victorian supported residential services (SRS) and their equivalents in other states. They argue that the Disability Royal Commission recommendation to support SRS residents to access independent advocacy to identify alternative, longer-term accommodation has the potential to make a difference, but that SRS proprietors - their landlords - are not the right people to support residents into better housing.
The Royal Commission
SRS have been described as a type of 21st century poorhouse, with a mix of residents with disabilities, ageing and complex needs living in poverty in an institutional setting. Their purpose has been categorised as a type of ‘end in itself’, such are the limited opportunities for recovery and rehabilitation for residents .
The Disability Royal Commission’s final report, released in September 2023, documented the isolation, lack of choice and control, limited opportunities for growth and the widespread nature and extent of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation for people living in SRS and their equivalents (e.g., assisted boarding houses in NSW, Tier 3 residential services in Queensland).
Based on the testimonies of former residents, family and advocates, the Royal Commission noted that SRS were unlikely to be the preferred option for some people with disability. In recognition of these findings, recommendation 7.38 was for minimum standards including the requirement for SRS proprietors and their equivalents to:
‘support residents to access independent advocacy services focused on identifying alternative, longer term accommodation options in recognition of the transitionary nature of these services.’ (Rec 7.38a).
What are SRS?
SRS emerged during the 1990s during the peak of deinstitutionalisation in Victoria, other Australian states, and overseas to fill a gap in services due to accommodation shortages for people leaving institutions.
SRS are licenced facilities regulated in Victoria by the State Government providing accommodation and assistance with daily living. Residents receive accommodation and support with daily living. The SRS sector is divided into pension-plus and pension-level SRS.
Pension-level facilities charge a portion of the disability support pension (usually 85-95%) and 100% of the person’s Commonwealth Rent Assistance - this article is about pension-level SRS - 70% of people living in these facilities experience psychosocial disability.
While there are fewer SRS now than in their peak period of the late 1990s, they are still relied on by mental health facilities, hospitals and homelessness services as a discharge option for people with nowhere else to go.
Research suggests that large scale shared supported accommodation are not the preference of most people with psychosocial disabilities. Many residents do not actively ‘choose’ to live in SRS but find themselves in these settings due to low economic capital and a lack of alternative options.
SRS are transitory services with high resident turnover, where the most common discharge destination is another SRS or exiting out due to death.
The Disability Royal Commission’s finding about the widespread nature and extent of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation for people living in SRS adds to evidence that has been emerging for decades that SRS are neither an appropriate or safe option.
The fact is that SRS are unable to meet the support needs of many residents, particularly people with psychosocial disability, due to their segregated, institutional nature, inadequate staffing and lack of a recovery or rehabilitative purpose.
The need for independent advocacy for pathways out of SRS
For decades the response to the failings of SRS has been to enhance regulation and increase cost subsidisation to improve standards of care. However, the Disability Royal Commission findings show that there are significant and ongoing problems with the model itself - the lack of everyday choice and control, the embedded poverty, the limited opportunities for recovery or rehabilitation and the risk of exploitation, abuse and neglect.
The limited research available about SRS and the people who live there suggests that many residents are ‘stuck’ in SRS with no appropriate pathways out.
The Disability Royal Commission’s recommendation for independent advocacy to help residents to find alternative accommodation is a positive and necessary step. The recommendation is now in the hands of state governments, who have six months to respond to the recommendations.
But are SRS proprietors (their landlords) the right people to support SRS residents into better housing?
Conflict of interest of SRS proprietors
SRS are privately operated businesses, and SRS proprietors play a dual role of landlord and support provider. SRS Proprietors are necessarily conflicted in supporting residents to explore pathways into more appropriate accommodation.
As landlord, they are required to ensure the financially viability of their service, requiring them to maintain maximum occupancy. If, as a result of the opportunity to explore their housing options, a significant number of residents move out, there will be an impact on profits and viability.
In a study undertaken for my PhD thesis exploring the experience of choice and control for people with psychosocial disability during the NDIS roll-out, a quote from one proprietor illustrates this conflict. When asked about whether the NDIS was resulting in residents exploring moving out, the proprietor explicitly stated,
‘We don’t want them to leave’.
Whilst many SRS proprietors have residents’ interests at heart and would support residents to find alternative housing, the shocking examples of exploitation reported in the ABC news show how this conflict of interest can play out.
Indeed there are so many examples of opportunism and exploitation emerging in SRS in the NDIS context that Minister Shorten has established a Taskforce to investigate, and a report just released by the NDIS Joint Standing Committee of the NDIS on the Capability and Culture of the NDIA recommends the establishment of a joint task force to investigate the exploitation and abuse of NDIS participants living in SRS (Rec. 11).
Conclusion
If adopted and funded by the Victorian State Government, the recommendation to support SRS residents to access independent advocacy to identify more appropriate accommodation has the potential to make a difference in the lives of SRS residents, many of whom are ‘stuck’ without pathways out of these settings.
But responsibility for referral to independent advocacy needs to be at a point where there is no conflict of interest e.g. hospital social workers or homelessness services, not with SRS proprietors – who are also their landlords.
__
Acknowledgment: The author thanks Lois Bedson for highlighting the embedded role of the SRS proprietor in this Disability Royal Commission recommendation.
About the author: Dr Elroy Dearn is a casual researcher at RMIT University in the School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, and a Research Fellow at the Summer Foundation.
Content moderator Sue Olney