Community Consultations on the 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness

No Wrong Door Workshop Report

On 13 November 2018, the Department of Communities held a targeted workshop to explore the concept of a No Wrong Door (NWD) approach to service delivery in the context of the development of the 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness. The workshop was aimed at service providers, with an emphasis on people with on the ground experience as well as an understanding of the systems and processes that underpin service delivery. Participants included representatives from state government agencies, community sector organisations and local government.

The session generated comments regarding the need for it to be made easier for a person to find the ‘right door’ through greater collaboration, better ways of working together and a connected service system. The group considered that there is a need for a sense of collective responsibility across the sector; no one service can do everything and that NWD in practice would include service hubs and co-location and across-sector collaboration with agencies such as mental health and alcohol and other drug services (AOD).

There is a need for greater flexibility in services as eligibility criteria can be a barrier, limiting access to a service for some clients. Also, there is a need to consider regional responses and Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CaLD) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) clients. In terms of systems and policies, there was discussion around not having time-limited services so people can get help for as long as they need it.

In relation to what is stopping us from having a NWD approach now, participants were deeply concerned about the lack of capacity ‘behind the door’ and the granular and fragmented services response. The focus is only on crisis not on soft re-entries.

Some of the key ingredients to a NWD approach include common and standardised forms and referral processes across the sector, a user-friendly central point of access for information such as availability of beds with access to case management. Participants felt strongly that without the resources to back it up NWD is tokenistic.

1

About the No Wrong Door Workshop

The purpose of the No Wrong Door workshop was to explore one of the principles for the Strategy—that there is a No Wrong Door approach to service delivery and that individuals are connected to the right assistance regardless of where they enter the homelessness service system. Invitations to the workshop were extended to community sector organisations as well as members of the Supporting Communities Forum Working Group on Homelessness.

The workshop was broken into two sessions. The first session focused on developing a shared understanding of what a No Wrong Door approach to service delivery means. The second session focused on what a No Wrong Door approach might look like in practice and what tools are needed to achieve change. The workshop was designed to build on and compliment the work of the City of Perth’s Homelessness Framework Committee around the coordination of homelessness services in the inner city.

2

Session 1: Developing a shared understanding This first session focused on developing a shared understanding of the No Wrong Door approach to service delivery.

Question 1: What does a No Wrong Door approach mean?

In the first half of the session respondents were divided into groups and each group was asked to consider what a ‘No Wrong Door’ approach to service delivery means. The following comments were received:

Warm referrals for clients Clients are ‘serviced out’ > to partner agencies

o talking about complex-need families with partners There is always a pathway to feed into. > Including housing > Lack of exits out of housing Assessment and coordination service

o held and linked out to other agencieso working out what the client’s priorities are > involve the client in the discussiono continue to review the client’s needs / priorities

Holistic care NOT time limited services. Help people for as long as they need Door out not just door in Barrier – eligibility criteria e.g. young people not old enough to access Sharing databases No one provider can do everything but they can link to other services Need up-to-date knowledge of what is going on Consistent service models i.e. metro wide

o less variations but flexible and responsive to needs of the client and the needs of CaLD and ATSI clients

Multiple access points Services can be intimidating to access No wrong door to what? > service must be appropriate and safe > culturally appropriate Need to educate and train staff about how to respond Need resources to back it up, otherwise NWD is tokenistic

o always comes back to resources. Gaps prevent NWD Need a variety of options What about the regions? Accountability > need follow up so people don’t get bounced around Need to look at better ways of working together and collaborating

3

Whole of system Connected service system Accessing services easily

o Triageo warm and supportive, safeo knowledgeable and trained staffo similar to family support networkso low thresholdo multiple access points > people; physical locations; information / resources

It is NOT:o list of 10 phone numberso “go to this website”o “sorry I can’t help”

Accommodation a primary need – Regional? “I can walk in [call, talk to] any service and won’t be turned away” “I will always be welcome in a part of the service system, and will be assisted to find the

right service(s)” Can show up anywhere and that door / place is not wrong Needs to create options and choices for people Preventing people from becoming homeless, not just crisis A good front door Making beds visible Good support options Collaboration across services Transparency, so services can make referrals. Services being up front about what they

can and can’t do Address complex issues—wrap around—can be from more than one place but needs

coordination All mainstream systems have a centre point One data entry system, regardless of funding source Accountability around what services are being provided Reducing barriers for people accessing services People are able to be up front and honest about their needs Knowing where to find the answer Making sure that all services are domestic violence and trauma informed Knowing how to access the service Common assessment process For the person ‘in crisis / needing help” the first point of contact is not “No” Making it easier to find the ‘right door’ when the person chooses to take that pathway Eligibility criteria not being a barrier to receiving assistance

4

When people seek help – it’s that no wrong door to help seeking First interaction – the person answering the phone knows what services are out there Responsibility – taking responsibility and helping the person to seek help

o warm referral and more detailso follow-up after referralso making it your business so that people get the right business

What services / supports are available impact on the NWD approach People know where they can go – clearer pathways and high visibility Agreed process that highlight clear visibility The community understanding like ‘000’ How do we reach individuals who don’t know their visibility > wider community

engagement? Assessment and referral process with the right skills – common assessment form Resource implications around the NWD approach Centralised assessment with specialised skills – community investment > triage approach NWD implies that there is capacity for beds NWD – Transparent; responsibility; accountability; client focussed

Question 2: From the perspective of a service provider / service user, what does a No Wrong Door system look like in practice?

In the second half of the session respondents remained in their groups and were asked to consider what a ‘No Wrong Door’ approach to service delivery looks like in practice. Half of the groups considered the question for the perspective of a service user and the other half from the perspective of a service provider.

The following comments were received from respondents taking a Service Provider perspective:

Confidentialityo All client’s sign informed consent to allow for information sharing with other

agencieso legal issues for young people around guardianship;

Learning from other jurisdictions Acknowledging gaps – ongoing review – to look at how to bridge Sense of collective responsibility across the sector Local government planning rules > restrict supply.

o Working to reduce a range of legislative barriers

5

Collaborationo Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs)o shared ITo Good quality training across the sector > Department of Communities has a role

especially regarding child safety / child protection Hubs / Co-location

o have services co-located e.g. financial counselling; AODo gaps in services – i.e. in-home support

Other:o Better leaving care services for young peopleo Resourcing and capacity within the sectoro innovation > new service models / approaches to capacity

Resources and capacity Need more flexibility Allocating resources for engagement team – does assessment and links to services

– assessment role Having central point of access for information regarding what services do and what is

availableo needs to be live and regularly updated, good quality and managedo good solid data seto linked to funding sources / contracts

Sharing information Waitlist management Having links / responsibility across service / sectors Having a “concierge” approach

o centralised > data / ITo giving a ‘correct’ referralo connecting to the ‘right’ service

Having a mechanism for services to have the training / knowledge to be part of a collaborative NWD system

Common assessment process – trusting the assessment of the service provider referring on > transparency

Great referrals internally (to organisations) No harm to organisations when they refer externally ‘50 lives 50 homes’ works:

o Success factorso collaboration – willingness – mandate (from funders; from CEOs)o sufficient resourceso flexible – enough resources

6

Data Is it ‘duplication’?

o organisations at capacityo organisations operating independently of governmento just complex

Specialist populations: youth, AOD, Mental Healtho Do we have the specialist? Co-ordinated? Services etc to work with people?

Support Money – earned income – income support – subsidy Removing barriers – FDV legislation, discrimination

The following comments were received from respondents taking a Service User perspective:

Young person – metroo It’s rarely just $; capacityo there are almost always inciting incidents / traumaso are you connected to education?o is tech a good avenue for you?o are you involved in the justice system?o A preventative mindseto The organisations you are connected with (schools; homeless services; ?)o will proactively seek to hook you in?o and everyone seeks to keep you hooked in…o Goal: Homelessness is a one-off for you…o We can’t just focus on the high risk / vulnerable kids

Young person – Regionalo services are thino non-specialist services in your location will flex to use the resources available to

help to the extent they can Woman with kids; family and domestic violence; Metro

o immediate; safe; secure; long-term housing; in continuum with support if neededo trauma response; including for kidso the legal support piece

Woman with kids; family and domestic violence; Regionalo safety to get out to get elsewhere (safe passage from up North, etc)

NWD as ‘best practice’… / Great referrals; single referral form [the privacy thing] Feel welcome and heard Availability of information through different mediums

7

Same language > facilitate that journey to another service Share story once Responsive to needs of client – timely Needs get met > culturally appropriate

o otherwise the person gets reactive The person gets to choose where they go

o options on what support is available Keep the client updated regularly / informed Client knows where to go Services have to be different – strengths based > shame / fear / anxiety All departments / services know what to do if someone asks for help or they think

someone needs help Adequate resourcing > flexible eligibility criteria Services move away from directions to strengths and choice Fluidity in the use of assets and services Expectations are managed as to what are the limits that a service has Not overpromising / overselling the service Ask for help (safe; welcoming; supportive)

o Someone has identified help is required (trust; responsibility and commitment to help)

o Help is easily accessed (human; feel heard) at a service location on phone, in person, online

o Connection to further help / services (choice) Doesn’t feel institutional (the user) vulnerability; disconnected; uncertainty; need for help (needs to find behind the

door) clarity; support; progress; appropriate services

8

Session 2: Tools for changeThe second session focused on what a No Wrong Door approach looks like in practice and what tools are needed to make it happen. The goal of this session was to develop actions to support a No Wrong Doro that could form part of the 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness.

Participants were asked to brainstorm answers to the following six questions:

Question 1: How do we make No Wrong Door happen? Shared agreement / understanding of what the NWD approach is Determining who drives ‘it’ Commitment from necessary partners Transparency of what services / agencies can and will deliver

o to identify roles and responsibility Working out (scoping) how it will be done Developing a shared referral process that is trusted Cross collaboration with agencies I.e. Mental Health and AOD Choose an area / prototype and just do it / trial it Specialist Homelessness Services protocols need to be ‘put back on the shelf’ with

commitment from leadership By changing the culture of the sector

o have a “whatever it takes” philosophy By fixing the system behind the door by creating a true housing pathway

o unblocking the transitional accommodation and crisis beds Resourcing needs to increase (in a tight fiscal environment) E.g. around high-risk families

with no housing pathways Innovative solutions to increase housing stock

o private rental brokerage schemes (need more or existing expanded) Playing to organisation’s strengths and fund services accordingly

o ensuring it is place based and designed from what works for the particular areao co-designed and co-delivered by those in that areao leads to true collaboration on outcomes

Accountability of organisations – contractual commitment and outcomes measurement By letting people know where to go to get help when they need it / want it - information

9

Question 2: What’s stopping us from having a No Wrong Door approach now? System information lives in people’s heads and informal networks “someone” needs to have a view of the whole system Lack of capacity behind the door Lack of soft re-entries Our focus Is only crisis Service response granular / fragmented Strategy too generic “Hands off” contracting approach from Government

o There are useful things Government could be doing e.g. assessment; co-ordination

No-one taking responsibility o who is responsible?o who is accountable?o shape of contracting

Delegation makes things difficulto State: Young people accessing support under current guardianship legislationo Federal: Access to income support, mature minor

There are many people / organisations operating independently o homelessness politics can be as complex as any other politics

No agreed model; No policy What looks like a “Wrong Door” is actually just a closed door; the resources are just not

there Wise service delivery requires making choices User choices

o agency is goodo but we are getting unintended outcomeso people trying to avoid visibility (for various reasons)

Great referrals can be hard to do o informal networks are helpful; but people turnover and networking is hardo available resourceso confidentiality – impact of privacy requirements

State / Federal / Local Government / Philanthropic $ Requirement to compete, between Not for Profit organisations especially Truth in labelling – ‘Recovery’; ‘Engagement’; ‘Wraparound’; ‘Holistic’

o the motivation to call something whatever we need to get the funding Perhaps, the perfect is the enemy of the good?

10

o it doesn’t have to be perfect to be good or an improvement (it is never going to be perfect)

No, we are not set up for soft re-entry We are set up for crisis Resilience Building > Response > Recovery Support

o specialist population; Practical: ER; Street Doctor; Intensity; Length; Wraparound; Location

Money o earned income; income support; subsidy: capital; recurrent; [crime]

Removing Barrierso family and domestic violence legislation; Centrelink breaching; discrimination.

Question 3: What tools can we use to implement and support a No Wrong Door approach? Centralised database > externally funded and maintained by government Standardised referral forms MOUs or relying on networks for increased flexibility – Don’t make MOUs to prescriptive Frameworks > mandated in contracts from Department of Communities

o with flexibility for organisations to tweak e.g. family support networks No one answer – need a range of tools A tool (App) that lets client take / share their information with services Transparent and up-to-date bed counts (with eligibility criteria known up front) Contracts Really good consent policies and practices

o care around what is shared and with whoo clients choose who they do and do not share with

Ongoing review > gaps and over servicing Local government protocols

o advocacy / co-ordination role especially in regions Joined up evaluations > evaluation is staggered Proper outcomes based funding Home for Now app / Information exchange Comprehensive data sets > data sits behind any app (Barrier) Mobile coverage > need for apps / phone access One, proper, updated directory

o a team specifically funded to do this, not services themselves.o Ask Izzy, but WA specific

11

A platform that empowers clients or their caseworker to have a say in the housing (e.g. community or public) they get > giving choice

Match services responses to client’s needs Tool to flag first time homeless across multiple services e.g. GPs and specialist

homelessness services (SHS) and divert ASAP to private rentals Services specifically for first-time homeless / re-badge ‘homeless; services to remove

stigma and pickup people who may not identify and homeless Centrelink Community Team (if they still exist) Shared definitions and commitment to shared outcomes about what NWD means;

Wraparound etc.o developed by / with sector or local government or the WA Alliance to End

Homelessness Client feedback and evaluations to assess if approach working Use worked examples – figure it out in practice – and share learnings Agencies to trial approaches and make adjustments as they go – don’t need to 100%

plan from the start Online training for staff or a practice forum.

Question 4: How do we integrate federally funded and delivered responses to homelessness in Western Australia? Better coordination between state and federal – we need to know what the

commonwealth funds / owns / operates How to make ‘unattractive’ services more marketable to philanthropic partnerships

o make time to attend networking days – services make time Centralised service list; who is doing what in what sector

o cross collaboration across departmentso linked with existing databases; using pre-established services-hub across the

regions > share information Meeting regularly – knowing what is going on in your patch and other’s patches Use what we have got CCB / CCR – harder for women / families in crisis to access > special childcare rate is

now much harder to access – allowing homeless services to access the service Training packages for key agencies e.g. Centrelink $? SHS protocols > used to work > sitting with CPFS? Flagship to build the profile of ‘homelessness’ – champion of change Job active services that do not integrate with local service providers Increase the rates of benefits from Centrelink.

12

Question 5: What does a place-based No Wrong Door model look like? Access point / engagement hub in each region – well connected to services Local councils / government

o regional networkso important role to play in provision of any existing coordinating place-based

structure Local services have access to central points on information / data sharing

o still need to know what is available in other areas for those who do not want place-based services

Exit points and housing solutions to be place-based Choice and control – choosing where you live and where you get supports – some

services in places are missing Incentives in contracts to encourage collaboration Directory – categorised / filtered by region / location Culturally appropriate + training Sharing assessments and knowing what places are available Safe for vulnerable people at risk – somewhere safe for those who may be ineligible for

the service they need i.e. sobering up shelters Community resource centres – revisit – good base model particularly in regional areas Servicing families based on where they live Having someone go to them – and having the same someone Face-to-face interaction and good trusting relationships Need right people with right skills – training Funded and resourced appropriately Good relationships with other services Evolving and live.

Question 6: Are there key ingredients to a No Wrong Door approach? If so, what are they? Trust and collaboration between government and non-government agencies to share

information and respect; talk through barriers Key repository for information Quality information – accurate Build a culture across the sector Whatever it takes to get it done Person-centred Time ? Triage – dedicated time to be able to do triage Funding – resourcing is key to having a ‘no wrong door’ approach

13

To get all this happening the key ingredient is resourcing Set principles across the sector regarding ‘no wrong door’ approach Technology > database – privacy concerns – staff training – service information and

user’s information Access to case management + availability of beds e.g. not just family and domestic

violence Shared waitlists + capacity across all agencies e.g. Wygge – Ian Shields – Community

Life Change management process > developmental, patience, pilot > supportive change

process Protecting data + information Must have exit pathways out of homelessness!!! Evaluation and demonstration of benefits > Has it worked? Value for money? Common and standardised forms across the sector

o may differ for different cohorts (language)o trust these assessments (can expand but not reassessed)

Training not a one-off > continued development Training for staff across mainstream e.g. medical, mental health, AOD, education Collaboration across government and non-government + community If doing well, then why have to go to retender? Shared KPIs, outcomes > is the client satisfied?

o Did you get a service in a timely manner? Safe, secure?o But how do you measure crisis?

Buy-in from government, state and federal -> because this is a new model E.g. Fusion (database) – FSN data – must be user friendly, trial first Not too many IT systems and database heavy Longer contracts 2–3 years is not long enough. Must be 5–7 years e.g. set up work,

evaluate, review. Staff will stay longer.

14