31 research outputs found
Supporting Vulnerable Households - Average House Prices 2000-2014
No full textThis project examines how social impact investment may be used to expand housing options for vulnerable seniors, those with disabilities and homeless people and improve outcomes for homeless people through social enterprises. The four impact investment vehicles examined are mutual funds, social impact investments, private capital and loans
The cost of homelessness and the net benefit of homelessness programs: findings from the Baseline Client Survey
No full textThis is the first of two Final Reports from the present AHURI Cost of Homelessness study. It outlined the methodological framework for the study, described the homelessness support environment and reported on the Baseline Client Survey, including a preliminary analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the programs examined and the extent to which it is possible to identify quasi-experimental comparison groups for the target treatment groups.
The study examined:
The extent to which outcomes for clients of specialist homelessness programs is changed by receiving support. Data to examine outcome changes is gathered via a longitudinal survey of clients of specialist homelessness services, administered when a period of support commences and again after 12 months.
The costs of non-homelessness services used by persons at risk of homelessness. This is estimated across the health, justice and income support domains, as well as an estimate of the cost of children being placed in care due to unstable accommodation circumstances, and the cost of public tenancy evictions for persons who are subsequently homeless.
The cost of providing specialist homelessness programs. This is examined both through a survey of agencies delivering specialist homelessness services and from government administrative data. The potential savings in non-homelessness services are netted off against the cost of providing homelessness support to determine the net cost to government of providing homelessness assistance.
Investigating the potential to use linked administrative homelessness, health, justice, income and welfare support data to quantify the costs of homelessness and the costs and benefits of homelessness program assistance.
Authored by Kaylene Zaretzky, Paul Flatau, Anne Clear, Elizabeth Conroy and Lucy Burns
Measuring the difference we make: the state-of-play of outcomes measurement in the community sector in Western Australia
No full textThe term ‘outcomes measurement’ refers to the measurement of the difference that an initiative, program or organisation makes to the lives of people they engage with. Outcomes measurement provides evidence on whether initiatives, programs and organisations are making a difference to the lives of people they serve. It is an important basis of learning within organisations of what works and what doesn’t work. Outcomes measurement also provides the foundation stone for evaluation, strategic planning and good governance, and is critical to good decision-making in respect of the appropriate allocation of resources by funders.
This report extends our previous Bankwest Foundation research and investigates the experiences of on-the-ground community organisations, government and philanthropic funders of community service organisations, and community sector peak bodies with outcomes measurement in Western Australia. This is particularly important in Western Australia as recent regulatory reform has placed outcomes measurement firmly on the agenda for all Western Australia departments, agencies and the organisations they work with.
This study finds outcomes measurement at a tipping point in Western Australia. Our mapping of outcomes measurement in Western Australia and consultations with community sector stakeholders in Western Australia suggest not simply a growing interest in outcomes measurement and a broad appetite for progress and change, but that community sector organisations, big and small, as well as funders, are implementing or seeking to implement a systematic, well-grounded outcomes measurement framework in their organisations and through their funding programs. Community organisations and the funders of programs are also moving towards more strategic use of the outputs of outcomes measurement and connecting measurement with strategy and performance improvement. 
Canyons and Ice: The Wilderness Travel of Dick Griffith
No full textDick Griffith journeyed across Alaska, Canada, Mexico, and the American West. According to Jon Krakauer, "Griffith is simply afflicted with an irresistible inclination to attempt what others say can't be done. When asked what possesses a man to repeatedly strike out alone across hundreds of miles of rugged, lonely country, he replies, 'Every so often, it's just time to walk.'" Kaylene Johnson is author of five books about Alaska including her memoir A Tender Distance: Adventures Raising My Son in Alaska
The relation between distress-risk, B/M and return: is it consistent with rational pricing?
No full textFama and French (1995, 1996) argue that the high-minus-low (HML) book-tomarket (B/M) factor in their 1993 three-factor model is a proxy for a distress-risk return premium and that the model is consistent with rational pricing. Alternative views are that the HML premium is caused by irrational behaviour or market inefficiencies.
Dichev (1998) finds that high distress-risk firms have low, not high, B/M and earn low returns. He also finds a systematic relation between the distress-risk characteristic and return, independent of the B/M characteristic. The effect of differences in the methodology used by Fama and French (1995) and Dichev (1998) has not been examined. In addition, there is no evidence of whether a distress-risk return premium is important in describing returns.
Examination of the characteristics and returns of sorted distress-risk portfolios shows that most high distress-risk, positive book-equity NYSE-AMEX firms do have high B/M. However, for both the NYSE-AMEX and NASDAQ, small firms with high distress-risk have low B/M ratios. A positive relation between distress-risk and return is not found for either NYSE-AMEX or NASDAQ firms. A distress-minus-solvent (DMS) return premium constructed using Fama and French (1993) methodology is negative and significant.
Regression results show that both the HML and the DMS factors are important in describing the time-series of returns. However, the HML factor is of only marginal importance when examining sorted distress-risk portfolio returns. In addition, the HML coefficients are related to the B/M characteristic, rather than distress-risk, when both sorted distress-risk and characteristic-balanced portfolio returns are examined.
The combined evidence suggests that HML cannot be interpreted as a return premium related to financial distress. However, a systematic relation does exist between distress-risk and return. The evidence supports a market inefficiency or irrational behaviour, rather than a risk based explanation of asset returns. Investors pay too much for financially distressed firms and subsequently earn low returns
The cost of homelessness and the net benefit of homelessness programs: a national study
No full textSpecialist Homelessness Services (SHS) aim to assist people who are homeless, or at risk of homelessness, to access and maintain stable and secure accommodation. This study examines the client outcomes of these services and the net costs of these programs for governments. Governments face direct costs for these programs but also may make budgetary savings resulting from reduced use of non-homelessness services (e.g. health, justice and welfare services).
The study used longitudinal surveys of SHS agencies and clients in four states (New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia) over the period 2010 to 2012.
Specialist Homelessness Services clients were found to experience more stable accommodation, improved access to health services, more stable income and improved social relationships. They experienced minimal change in relation to employment and financial circumstances: most remained reliant on welfare payments.
Governments also experienced fiscal benefits from these programs. The reduction in average non-homelessness costs in the first year after receiving support was 3685 per client. This is despite the fact that non-homelessness costs for many clients (especially single men) actually increased post-SHS because of increased take up of health services or better access to welfare payments.
This had significant implications for the effective costs of the SHS programs. For example, total program costs of providing supported accommodation programs for single men (4890 per client) are partially offset by non-homelessness service savings of 3501 per client). The offsets for single women (4030 per client.
Policy-makers and practitioners should be encouraged that programs designed to address homelessness appear to have direct benefits for the individual but also additional fiscal benefits, even in the short term. They should be careful in suggesting it is a cost-effective method for all clients as some SHS clients experience an immediate increase in usage of health and welfare services. Longer term cost savings for these clients might only be observed after tracking the outcomes of SHS clients over a longer period
The cost effectiveness of sustaining tenancies of formerly homeless clients with high needs
No full textThis report provides an Australia-wide review of National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH) programs which assist clients to access and maintain a social housing tenancy or support existing social housing tenants at risk of homelessness maintain their tenancies. The report examines the background of presenting units supported by the programs, the support provided, and the housing outcomes achieved. It also examines the cost of providing support and the cost of capital employed in providing social housing
The cost of homelessness and the net benefit of homelessness programs: A national study. Findings from the Baseline Client Survey
No full textHomelessness occurs when an individual does not have access to safe, adequate or secure shelter. Homelessness can lead to much higher use of mainstream public support services, such as health and justice services, than is evident in the general population (Flatau et al. 2008; Zaretzky et al. 2008). At the same time, services supporting homeless people may assist them to achieve positive change in their life and so reduce the use of these services and their reliance on welfare services. Increased housing stability can also result in decreased costs for providers of public housing through a decrease in the number of evictions. Given the costs of homelessness, the provision of homelessness services may result in ‘whole-of-government’ budgetary savings as a result of improved client outcomes.
With the Australian Government’s White Paper on Homelessness, The Road Home (2008) and the commencement of the National Affordable Housing Agreement (NAHA) and the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness (NPAH), there has been increased emphasis on examining the outcomes of homelessness support programs and whether these programs are cost-effective
What is the (net) cost to Government of Homelessness Programs?
No full textHomelessness programs may improve the health, well‑being, financial security, labour market and housing outcomes of clients. This, in turn, may result in decreased utilisation of health and justice services, reduced child residential care costs, lower housing management costs, lower income support payments and higher revenue from increased income tax payments. When costed, such impacts represent whole‑of‑government savings or cost offsets to the provision of homelessness programs. This paper provides indicative estimates of the value of potential savings or cost offsets in two areas, namely, the health and justice fields from homelessness program interventions. Our key finding is that homelessness programs have the potential to save over twice the value of the capital and recurrent funding of homelessness programs on the basis of health and justice cost offsets alone
The financing, delivery and effectiveness of programs to reduce homelessness
No full textThis research examined the funding sources of homeless services through administering a survey to Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) and other (non-specialist) services which deliver homelessness services (non-SHS). While the survey highlighted that funding is predominantly from government sources, there is growing interest in the diversification of funding sources to meet service demand, enable service innovation and attain agency sustainability. Flexibility and discretion of funding utilisation is favoured by agencies to meet service objectives.
Summary of key findings:
Of the 398 Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) (response rate 35.5%) that completed the survey – 298 of these provided organisational funding information (298 SHS represent approximately 20% of the services in the AIHW data collection) – while 216 provided funding dollar amounts.
Also a small sample of 21 non-SHS provided funding information (with 17 providing funding dollar amounts). As this sample is likely to be unrepresentative, any findings in relation to these providers should be treated with caution and not directly compared to the SHS findings.
Services profile – of the SHS and non-SHS respondent services (n=319) 17.7% of respondent services were homelessness specific agencies with 70.7% providing a mix of homelessness and non-homelessness services. Annual revenue of these services comprised: 21.9% less than 1m–5m.
Funding profile (n=216 SHS that provided funding dollar amounts) – not surprisingly, 84.6% of funding received by SHS comes from government (49.5% via NAHA or NPAH). A further 5.2% government and 2.7% non-government funding is allocated by the parent agency. Only 3.6% of funding came from donations, philanthropy and sponsorships.
Rent contributed to 92% of internally generated revenue. However this makes up only 2.4% of the total (internal plus external) funding source.
For non-SHS (n=17) 60.6% of total funding came from government and 21.3% from donations/sponsorship/philanthropy. 75.6% of internally generated revenue came from social enterprise however this was only 0.7% of total funding.
No SHS or non-SHS reported funding via social impact investors or social impact bonds.
The level of unmet demand in the SHS sector suggests that resources are not adequate to meet demand. In 2013–14 for every 100 clients there were 60 unassisted requests and in 2014–15 there were 47 unassisted requests
