Rooming house futures: governing for growth, transparency and fairness

Examines the policy and practical challenges being encountered in the development of a legitimate and viable rooming/boarding house sector, and how might these best be overcome through an improved regulatory regime and other measures to address a range of housing needs. Executive summary This Discussion Paper is provided to invitees to an Investigative Panel on Rooming House Futures as part of a project funded by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI). The principal question framing this project asks: What are the policy and practical challenges being encountered in the development of a legitimate and viable rooming house/boarding house sector and how might these best be overcome through an improved regulatory regime and other measures to address a range of housing needs? Key features of the rooming house sector in Victoria are: There are 1131 registered rooming houses, with 60 per cent operated by individuals and 40 per cent by organisations. The majority are in suburban locations in suburban Melbourne, particularly south-eastern Melbourne and regional centres, most notably Geelong. The number of unregistered rooming houses, for which there are varying estimates, is unknown. The growth of new rooming houses has principally stemmed from the conversion of existing private houses into rooming houses in the suburbs which has arrested and reversed the decline of rooming houses as traditional older style rooming houses were demolished or converted back to single family use. Rooming houses accommodate disadvantaged and vulnerable people but, recently, new forms of demand have emerged which includes that from international and domestic students, travellers, low-income earners and some types of key workers. People find accommodation in rooming houses in different ways including through tertiary education providers, referrals from not-for-profit agencies, online sites such as Gumtree and through word-of-mouth. Developments in the sector have been market-led with increasing growth in segments in the rooming/boarding house sector that appear to have outpaced policy and regulatory settings. Chapter 2 presents an analysis of available evidence on the rooming house market. In the period from 2006 through to 2012 Non Government Organisation (NGO) campaigns highlighted issues of amenity, health and safety for rooming house residents in the context of a changing housing market and called for regulatory reform. In Chapter 3 an account of changes to the system of regulation that followed a government review is provided along with an analysis of stakeholder views of the outcome. In Chapter 4 a summary account of significant outstanding issues is presented which lead to identification of key issues for further discussion by the Investigative Panel (Chapter 5)

Housing, public policy and social inclusion

“Copyright 2010 AHURI Limited. Published version of the paper reproduced here with permission from the publisher.” This is the publisher's copryight version of this article, the original can be found at: http://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/position-papers/135Social inclusion is a term sometimes deployed by policy makers to signal an intent to address long-standing inequalities within society. The aim of policies framed by social inclusion is to assist people who are marginalised to secure better outcomes in areas such as health, housing, education and employment. It is widely recognised that policies to enhance social inclusion require a whole of government approach across a range of service delivery areas alongside fiscal policies and resources to ensure that programs are adequately funded. The current focus of Australia housing policy in relation to social inclusion is across three areas: homelessness, place-based disadvantage and the disadvantages experienced by Indigenous households. This Positioning Paper provides a review of the literature on social inclusion and housing as the foundation for an empirical research project that seeks to understand the best forms of policy intervention to secure optimum outcomes for individuals and households who experience housing disadvantage. The aim of the paper is to make explicit the ways that housing processes ‘perform’ in accentuating or ameliorating social disadvantage

How does the concept of social inclusion play a role in housing policy?

“Copyright 2012 AHURI Limited. Published version of the paper reproduced here with permission from the publisher.” This is the publisher's copryight version of this article, the original can be found at: https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/research-and-policy-bulletins/156. This bulletin is based on AHURI project 50566, Housing, public policy and social inclusion.Australia's governments employ coordinated interventions to target people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. These interventions promote social inclusion by focussing on place and location. This project explored how people are excluded through housing processes and the extent to which housing-related policies and programs can enhance social inclusion.This material was produced with funding from Australian Government and the Australian States and Territories, AHURI Limited acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from the Australian, State and Territory Governments, without which this work would not have been possible

Rental Insights A COVID-19 Collection

This Collection offers insights from twenty of Australia’s leader academics and thinkers into the survey results of 15,000 Australian rental households. The Collection draws on data from The Australian Rental Housing Conditions Dataset funded by the Australian Research Council in partnership with six Australian universities as well an additional AHURI funded COVID-19 module

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Shaky foundations: moving beyond 'housing tenure'

Housing tenure retains a 'taken for granted' status in much writing on housing, despite some previous critical analysis. This article reviews theoretical perspectives on housing tenure, and re-examines the construction of housing tenure in Australia as it relates to changing land tenure arrangements and institutional settings which affect housing occupancy. It asserts that the construction of housing tenure as a series of unchanging and mutually exclusive categories, centred on 'usual residence', creates a barrier to understanding changes in how households occupy and buy/sell housing, using the examples of increased investment in residential property and a proliferation of market housing arrangements for older people. A suggested way forward is to distinguish questions about housing occupancy, which affect the daily life and circumstances of households, from questions relating to investment in residential property as an asset and potential generator of capital and income for households, particularly as they become older

Housing allowances and private renting in liberal welfare regimes

The paper explores the relevance of the concept of a liberal welfare regime to housing provision through an exploration of the interactions between governments, private markets and households in rental housing in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States. In particular, it examines the extent of dualism in these four countries in the financing, ownership and management of rental housing and the types of social guarantees offered by governments to households in different rental sectors. The paper concludes that the welfare regime concept has some relevance in explaining dualism in rental housing in the four countries, as reflected in different types of guarantees offered to households through social housing and housing allowances. It finds, however, that there is passive rather than active government support for private rental markets and that different institutional arrangements in the four countries lead to differences in the extent of government support for private renters

Analysis of community service grants distributed under the F.A.C.S. Program

Abstract not available

Affordability is about renters, too

We have been hearing a lot recently about housing affordability. Much of the discussion has been about the effects of high, and increasing, apartment and house prices. There is no doubt that these prices make it hard for some people to achieve their dream of home ownership. This is particularly so for younger people and first home buyers. We hear rather less about the problems of people who rent their housing. This is despite evidence that almost half a million renter households are in 'housing stress', or almost a quarter of Australia's 2 million renter households. [Introduction

Housing, public policy and social inclusion

This Positioning paper is the first output of an AHURI Project on Housing, Public Policy and Social Inclusion. The project will explore the ways in which housing processes can affect economic and social disadvantage, and whether, and to what extent, housing and related policies and programs can be effective in addressing such disadvantage. Authors: Kath Hulse, Keith Jacobs, Kathy Arthurson and Angela Spinney. Image: woodleywonderworks / flick