Boarding House - Research
Boarding House - Research
Peter Anderson
Arthur Hume
Nancy Rogers
Tracey Stephenson
This report was made possible by the assistance of those people living in
boarding houses, and by boarding house owners and managers who agreed
to be interviewed for this study. Thank you for sharing your experiences.
Thank you also to those representatives of various agencies and services who
provide information and advice to the study.
Paul Willey
Jayne Wrigley
Raphael Chapman
Ollie Peters
Carmel O’Connor
Jim Phillips
David Egege
Mark Bagshaw
This report was written by Peter Anderson, Nancy Rogers and Tracey
Stephenson. Field research was conducted by Peter Anderson. Data analysis
was provided by Arthur Hume.
Alan Fairley and Anne Gale provided valuable support and advice in the
early stages of development of the study.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2 INTRODUCTION 6
7 PROPRIETOR INTERVIEWS 51
9 NATIONAL DIRECTIONS 59
12 REFERENCES 76
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 The Study
Boarding houses provide low-cost accommodation to some of the most
marginal and disadvantaged members of our community. Residents occupy
a precarious position in the private housing market, are generally of low
income, and many also have physical, intellectual, social and psychological
difficulties which affect their everyday functioning to varying degrees. In the
continuum of housing security, living in a boarding house is an insecure and
commonly inadequate option, and there is increasing acceptance nationally of
a definition of homelessness which categorises residents of boarding houses
as “tertiary homeless”.
This study has gathered information which can inform the policy and
planning issues with regards to boarding houses. It has located and profiled
the existing stock of boarding houses in metropolitan Adelaide; profiled the
residents; sought their views on their accommodation; and made some
assessments of the future viability of the sector and the appropriateness of
facilities.
The literature documents the changing role of the boarding house sector in
Australia, as well as the changing nature of the clientele and the decline in
stock. Studies suggest residents are increasingly people ‘on the margins’,
both physically and socially, and that ill health, poverty, and disability, as
well as loneliness and a lack of significant relationships and support,
characterise the lives of many residents. Residents have been found to have
1
low expectations of housing, and report both advantages and disadvantages
with boarding house accommodation. Affordability, ease of access and
flexibility are key benefits; the poor quality of stock and problems with other
residents are the major drawbacks identified. Studies suggest most residents
would prefer other, self-contained, accommodation.
2
Most boarding houses are private (for profit) operations. 19% of beds were
publicly owned1 – of these just under half were managed by Not For Profit
organisations at the time of the study.
Most boarding houses are smaller premises accommodating between 3 and 8
residents. Most boarding houses in South Australia operate in older
premises; this has implications for the standard of stock as well as the costs of
maintenance and improvements.
Standards of boarding house premises vary across the sector. While the
study was not able to carry out a formal assessment of properties, through the
course of the field work it was observed that approximately one quarter were
in poor condition. Properties owned by the Housing Trust and operated by
community groups were of consistently good standard.
The main area of expansion in the sector is private operators buying up low
cost properties in the inner suburbs as boarding facilities, often of a size to
escape Local Government regulation (where it exists).
1
‘publicly-owned’ refers to properties owned by state government housing authorities or Not For
Profit organisations
3
• Housing histories indicated a high degree of housing vulnerability and
the use of unstable and insecure options that equate with primary or
secondary homelessness – most (58%) had either slept rough; stayed
temporarily with friends; lived in a caravan or stayed in an emergency
shelter.
• Relationship breakdown was often identified as a factor precipitating the
loss of more secure housing and a decline across life domains.
For most proprietors, the business is profitable, with vacancy rates generally
low. Most proprietors had been in the industry long term and report that the
nature of residents has changed, with residents increasingly being younger,
more marginal, and more involved in drug use and with mental health issues.
A significant proportion of current proprietors may not continue to operate in
the future, given their age profile and those who reported an unprofitable
business. Boarding houses will be increasingly seen by the private sector as
an investment, rather than a career choice. The capacity of the not-for-profit
4
sector to expand to meet demand for this form of accommodation is
dependent on government support.
1.9 Conclusion
The South Australian community, through government, has accepted
responsibility to care for and protect vulnerable members, including through
the provision of affordable, stable and appropriate accommodation and
support. In this context, the needs of residents within the boarding house
sector should be considered, and appropriate responses developed, including
the active generation of a ‘renewed’, not-for-profit sector.
5
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 The study
Boarding houses provide low-cost accommodation to some of the most
marginal and disadvantaged members of our community. Residents occupy
a precarious position in the private housing market, are generally of low
income, and many also have physical, intellectual, social and psychological
difficulties which affect their everyday functioning to varying degrees. In the
continuum of housing security, living in a boarding house is an insecure and
commonly inadequate option, and there is increasing acceptance nationally of
a definition of homelessness which categorises residents of boarding houses
as “tertiary homeless”.2
Despite all that is known or rumoured about boarding houses, there is also
much that is unknown. How many boarding houses are there in South
Australia? Has the supply of rooms declined, why, and can and should this
be reversed? Who lives in boarding houses, and does the accommodation
meet their needs and acceptable community standards? Is safe, secure and
affordable housing the sole policy and planning concern, or do boarding
house residents have other support needs in addition to housing issues?
Understanding the answers to these basic questions helps shape the answers
to more complex issues; for example, how should boarding houses be
regulated and residents better protected? Should government be actively
intervening to prevent the demise of privately-run boarding houses, or
building up an alternative sector? Do boarding house residents require better
support from health and community services?
2
Chamberlain C & Johnson G (2001) The debate about homelessness, Australian Journal of Social
Issues Vol 36 No. 1
6
This study has sought to address some of the basic questions about boarding
houses, and thus to provide advice on the bigger issues. It has located,
mapped and profiled the existing stock of boarding houses in metropolitan
Adelaide (with some reference to the country); profiled the residents of these
facilities; sought their views on their accommodation; and made some
assessments of the future viability of the sector and the appropriateness of the
existing facilities to the housing and support needs of the residents. It has
also briefly examined developments in boarding house policy and practice
across Australia.
7
2.2 What is a boarding house?
In Australia the terms “rooming houses”, “boarding houses” and “lodging
houses” are often used loosely and interchangeably. At the same time a
distinction is commonly made between the provision of ‘room only ‘ and
‘room plus other services’. For instance
• ‘Boarding House’ describes a form of accommodation where rent is
collected for the use of a single room, where other facilities such as
kitchen, toilet and living areas may be shared. The single room may
be provided on a single or shared basis. Meals and other services
such as laundry may or may not be included.
• ‘Lodging’ and ‘Rooming’ houses generally provide accommodation
only. 3
Recently the term ‘Single Room Occupancy (SRO)’ has gained currency as a
term inclusive of all these types of arrangements that are predicated on sole
occupancy rental of a single room. “Boarding houses’, however, is probably
the most common term in use in South Australia, and is therefore used
throughout this report as a generic term.
Boarding houses are usually privately owned and operated; however some
properties are publicly-owned (by housing authorities or community
agencies) and administered either by for profit or not for profit operators.
All these facilities were included in the study.
3
From the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Boarding House Reform Discussion
Paper, 1994 cited in Luxford, L. (1996) Boarding and Lodging House Accommodation Project,
National Conference on Homelessness.
8
call the place his own. He/she does not have “exclusive possession” of the
property; and the landlord or his agents still retains unrestricted access to,
and use of, the premises (a distinction clarified in the case of Street v
Mountford).4
4
Cited in Maher et al (1997), Australia’s Private Rental Housing Market: Processes and Policies,
Working Paper No 9, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
9
3 OVERVIEW OF PREVIOUS STUDIES
Australian studies of boarding houses have tended to focus on key themes:
• understanding the role boarding houses play as a specific type of tenure in
the private rental market
• documenting the level of amenity of boarding house stock
• concern about the decline of boarding house stock, and forecasting future
need
• profiling the type of persons living in boarding houses, their needs and
their housing aspirations, and
• concern about tenure and living conditions for residents.
Overall two primary (and somewhat oppositional) views emerge: that the
boarding house sector is important for the continued housing of low income
people in inner city areas; and, at the same time, there is concern about the
standards and conditions in boarding houses.5
The current role of boarding houses is quite different to previous decades
when boarding houses were a major form of ‘decent and respectable’
accommodation for working men. Boarding houses now provide
accommodation for an increasing number of people reliant on government
income support6 and, in the broader community, are regarded as a less
desirable form of accommodation that provides residents with an ‘underclass
existence’.7
Living in a boarding house is now regarded by some commentators as a form
of homelessness. Chamberlain and Johnson8 argue that all residents of
boarding houses are in effect homeless due to their lack of housing tenure
and housing choice; and the poor quality of amenities provided which fails to
meet community standards of basic accommodation.
Boarding house living may be viewed favourably by some who feel suited to
its particular characteristics: congregate living can provide a social
environment; it is cheaper and some services may be provided. The short-
term tenure and ‘no questions asked’ approach means people can come and
go fairly anonymously; and there is a degree of acceptance for those with
deviant behaviour. At the same time the reality is that residents may have
few, if any, other options.9
5
Luxford, L (1996) op.cit.
6
ibid.
7
Hefferan, 1988, Review of Boarding and Lodging Accommodation in Metropolitan Adelaide,
Department of Public and Consumer Affairs, South Australia, and Department of Housing and
Construction, South Australia.
8
Chamberlain C & Johnson G (2001) op.cit.
9
Hefferan, 1988, op.cit.
10
How much people living in boarding houses do so out of choice, and how
much out of necessity is a crucial question underlying research and policy in
this area.
Spivac15 reports that, over the past two decades, the loss was firstly in relation
to smaller boarding houses that were converted over to domestic dwellings.
More recently the increased popularity of inner city apartment style
accommodation has resulted in the conversion of larger boarding house
premises into ‘up market’ medium density accommodation. There is some
evidence that the remaining boarding house stock, which has so far resisted
economic and other pressures to convert usage, may be of a reduced
standard.16
While some stock is lost outright through being sold or converted, the
tightening of the market means that stock also becomes unavailable to the
‘least desirable ’ segment of the boarding house population as proprietors
become more selective about who they take in. In Jope’s survey of
proprietors in the City of Yarra, some claimed that they would no longer take
referrals of homeless people or those with special needs, and almost half
indicated that they would be making changes in the future to the type of
residents they accommodated.
10
Jope, S (2000) On the Threshold, the future of private rooming houses in the City of Yarra,
Brotherhood of St Laurence.
11
Spivac, G (1997) City of Port Phillip Housing Strategy, City of Port Phillip
12
Hefferan, (1988) op.cit.
13
Davidson et al (1988) Inner Sydney Boarding House Project, research report for the NSW
Department of Planning by the Urban and Regional Planning Program, University of Sydney.
14
ibid.; Hefferan (1988) op.cit.; Luxford (1996) op.cit.; Foley, A (1997) Boarding Houses: Strategies
for a declining sector, National Housing Action, November 1997.
15
Spivac (1997) op.cit.
16
Jope S (2000), op.cit.
11
A similar trend is reported by service providers in Adelaide; that, as the
boarding house market becomes tighter, ‘difficult’ clients are being excluded,
and people on low incomes with behavioural and social problems are finding
it increasingly difficult to access this ‘last stop’ housing option. While public
and community housing authorities have entered the boarding house field,
this has not compensated for the loss of privately provided rooms.
17
Luxford (1996) op.cit.
18
ibid.
19
Horton N (1990) Up, Down or Out? Property market pressures and the Homeless in inner
Melbourne, A study of the users of inner Melbourne’s low cost single room accommodation,
Econsult.
12
Lack of disposable income (two thirds of residents sampled paid over 40% of
their income on rent) was a major issue influencing ability to move into
another housing option. While some people clearly saw boarding houses as a
temporary arrangement, others indicated that they would continue to live
indefinitely in this form of accommodation, due to the lack of alternatives or
the motivation and skills required to seek out options.
Some people had lived in rooming house accommodation for a long time, so
that this had become their ‘preferred’ (or at least ‘normal’) type of housing.
The connection between boarding house accommodation and homelessness
was evident, as was the precarious nature of many residents’ current
situation, with 20% of the sample group having previously been homeless (ie
sleeping out or living in a shelter or refuge) and 45% of the sample using
welfare services for help with food and money whilst living in a boarding
house.
Horton concluded that most people living in boarding houses fell into the
following groups:
• The ‘downward spiral’ – those who had previously lived in what they
regarded as better housing, that was more stable, more ‘respectable’ or
more comfortable. However, factors such as relationship or family
breakdown, or suddenly changed economic circumstances through
sickness or loss of employment, meant they could not maintain this
accommodation. These people saw themselves as having ‘lost ground’
and often exhibited low self esteem.
• The ‘upward spiral’ – those who had ‘stepped up’ from shelters or sleeping
rough, often with assistance from welfare agencies. Some needed
assistance to maintain their boarding house accommodation.
• The ‘immobile group’ – those who had lived in boarding houses for several
years, possibly shifting from one boarding house to another but usually
not seeking any other form of housing. These people could not see
themselves living in any other form of accommodation.
• The ‘travellers’ – those needing temporary accommodation, possibly
because they were working in the area or whilst they waited to move
elsewhere, for example for seasonal work interstate.
To what extent do people living in boarding houses experience illness or
disability? De-institutionalisation policies of the 70’s and 80’s saw many
people with psychiatric, intellectual or physical disabilities find
accommodation in boarding houses.20 For instance the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission Inquiry into Mental Health reported that
20
Foley A (1997), op.cit.
13
approximately 70-80% of residents in boarding houses in the central Sydney
area experienced serious mental illness.21
Hefferan identified that in Adelaide some boarding houses were extending
their services to provide care and support to the aged and disabled. A
parallel inquiry into intellectually and psychiatrically disabled persons living
in boarding houses found that at least 48% of residents in the boarding
houses surveyed were considered to be receiving treatment for an intellectual
or psychiatric disability.22
In the same vein, service provision documented by the Boarding House Social
Work team in the southern suburbs of Adelaide in 1991 confirmed the high
proportion of boarding house residents with psychiatric disabilities, as well
as those with brain injury and alcohol and substance addiction23.
The introduction of the Supported Residential Facilities Act in South
Australia in 1992 brought those boarding houses providing support services
to residents with disabilities and mental illness under a new regulatory
regime and provided a regulatory separation of the rooming house/ private
hotel/boarding house sector from the supported residential facilities sector.
It might be assumed therefore that people with disabilities and mental illness
would not be prevalent in the boarding house sector today. However
comparable interstate studies of rooming houses and private hotels suggest
that, despite other States also distinguishing between ‘residential-only’
boarding houses and boarding houses that provide support to persons with
disabilities, the ‘residential-only’ boarding house sector still continues to
accommodate some people with a level of disability or illness.
For example, Horton identified that nearly 20% of a sample of persons living
in rooming houses and private hotels in inner Melbourne indicated they
received psychiatric treatment, and 30% had problems with alcohol. Close to
half of the sample group of residents were not able to work due to their
health or disability.24
In the City of Yarra study over half the proprietors surveyed reported that
they accommodated people with special needs resulting from age, disability,
mental illness, health, substance abuse and isolation from family. Service
providers reported that residents had become younger and illicit drug use
had become more visible, and that rooming houses accommodated persons
with psychiatric disabilities and health needs.25 At the same time service
providers also reported that residents with mental illness had been ‘squeezed
21
Cited in Maher et al (1997), op.cit.
22
South Australian Health Commission, (1988) Psychiatrically and intellectually disabled residents
in boarding houses; Report for the Human Services Committee of Cabinet.
23
Chapman R & Provis J (1991) Fritz and White Bread, Report and Review of the Community
Accommodation Support Service Southern Boarding House Social Work Team, South Australia
24
49% of the sample group received either Invalid Pension or Sickness Benefits (Horton, (1990)
op.cit.).
25
Jope (2000), op.cit.
14
out’ of certain boarding houses; therefore effectively reducing the prevalence
of mental health issues in the boarding house population.
The evidence suggests that ill health, poverty, disability, as well as loneliness
and a lack of significant relationships and support, characterise the lives of a
significant proportion (although not all) of residents.
26
Chapman & Provis (1991) ibid; Cleary et al (1998) Boarding house life for people with a mental
illness: an exploratory study; Australian & New Zealand Journal of Mental Health Nursing vol 7.
27
Jope (2000), op. cit.
28
Horton (1990), op.cit.
15
Comparing with a previous study,29 Hefferan concluded boarding house
stock had declined by about 50% from 1978 to 1988. The 1978 study showed
stock concentrated in the same four key council areas (Adelaide, Port
Adelaide, Glenelg and Unley) noted by Hefferan, whereas prior to 1978
boarding houses were spread more generally across the metropolitan area.
The 1978 study also indicated that the City of Adelaide had the highest
number of beds (1597) and properties (88). As stock decreased between 1978
and 1988 the proportion of stock located in the City of Adelaide increased.
29
Badcock B & Urlich Clother D (1978) Low Rent Boarding & Lodging Accommodation in the
City of Adelaide; a Report for the City of Adelaide Planning Commission
16
In 1988, about half the 125 establishments housed between five and nine
residents, and a further quarter housed between 10 and 25 residents.
Properties with more than 25 residents made up less than 10% of stock.
Private ownership was predominant, with the SA Housing Trust owning 5%
of the total stock. Most commonly boarding houses were operated by an
individual or family partnership, with owners owning and operating a sole
property. Multiple property ownership – ie where a private owner owned
more than one boarding house property – accounted for about 20% of the
total bed numbers.
Since 1988, studies have examined particular locations, such as the City of
Adelaide and the West End region of the city30 and particular tenure forms eg
public boarding house stock. 31 However there has not been a metropolitan-
wide study conducted to update Hefferan’s work32.
30
Adelaide City Council (1999); City of Adelaide Rooming Houses: A sector under pressure,
notes for the Capital City Committee; Fraser G & Associates (1997), West End Boarding and
Rooming House Strategy, unpublished report.
31
Schneider M (1998) Boarding House Review, South Australian Housing Trust, internal working
document.
32
A count of boarding houses in the metropolitan area was conducted by Shelter SA in 2001, however
these results are not reported here due to methodological problems.
33
Chamberlain C (1999), Counting the Homeless – Implications for Policy Development,
Occasional Paper, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia.
34
It should be noted that the purpose of the Census count was to estimate homelessness, therefore
people staying in boarding houses on Census night with a home elsewhere (eg interstate or overseas)
17
The current study attempted to examine other data sources (including ABS
Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers, 1998; and FaCS Centrelink Housing
Dataset 2000) to determine whether people living in boarding houses could
be counted by other means. None of this data could accurately or reliably
identify and count persons in boarding houses according to the definition of
‘boarding house’ adopted in this study.
were excluded. The present study has attempted to estimate boarding house beds, therefore these
tenants are included. The Chamberlain study also included private hotels, beyond scope for the current
count.
18
4 THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
There is no single Act that provides the regulatory framework for Boarding
Houses. Regulation is complex, and spread across a number of Acts,
including:
19
Table 4.1: Local government By-laws relating to boarding houses
Local Minimum License/ Inspections Standards specified
Government number of permit conducted
Authority residents required
Holdfast Bay Six or more yes yes List of prohibited activities for
residents (eg no use of bathroom
for laundry purposes)
Adelaide No minimum yes yes no
specified
Norwood, Payneham No minimum yes yes • Space per person
and St Peters specified • Minimum room size
• Number bathrooms and
toilets, etc
• Laundry facilities
• Cooking facilities
• Cleanliness
Burnside Five or more yes yes List of prohibited activities for
residents (eg no use of bathroom
for laundry purposes)
Port Adelaide Six or more yes yes • Space per person
• Number beds per room
• Other bedroom
requirements
• Number bathrooms and
toilets, etc and other
sanitation provisions
• Fire safety
• Cooking facilities
• Laundry
• Common rooms
• Repairs
• Cleanliness
20
The City of Salisbury has Public and Environmental Health Guidelines for
Lodging and Boarding Houses. No non–metropolitan councils have specific
by-laws or policies in relation to boarding houses apart from general
planning and building controls.
Some LGA’s (eg Adelaide and Port Adelaide Enfield) conduct inspections of
boarding houses both for the purposes of registration and as a response to
issues raised by residents or members of the community.
Under the Building Code boarding houses will either be classified as Class 1B
or Class 3 buildings. Class 1B is defined as
‘a boarding house, guest house, hostel or the like with a total floor
area not exceeding 300 square metres and in which not more than 12
persons would ordinarily be resident.’
Class 3 is
‘a residential building, other than a class 1 or 2, which is a common
place of long-term or transient living for a number of un-related
persons, including, ……a boarding house, guest house, hostel,
lodging house or backpackers accommodation. ‘
Different standards apply for these two classes.
21
New buildings, or premises applying for change of use or approval for
alterations, are required to comply with the standards specified by the
Building Code. Older premises being used as boarding houses are required
to meet the standards that applied at the time of the last building alterations,
or as considered reasonable by Council authorities should the property come
to the attention of Council.
As well as general building and safety requirements, fire safety provisions are
provided under the Development Act. Fire safety requirements for Class 1B
buildings are found in Regulation 76B of the Development Regulations 1993
which specify the installation of smoke alarms. The fire safety requirements
for Class 3 buildings are more stringent and specified in the Building Code.
The regime for inspecting and monitoring fire safety compliance is somewhat
complicated. Under the Development Act 1993 local councils have
responsibility for the inspection and monitoring of fire safety. Under the
South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service Act (1936), fire officers are
authorised to enter and inspect a public building to determine the adequacy
of safeguards against fires or other emergencies. In practice the SAMFS has
taken a pro-active approach to instituting a schedule of inspections of
boarding houses they are aware of, and will also undertake fire safety
inspections at the request of Councils and assist or advise Council staff
conducting fire safety inspections.
Certain types of residential settings such as nursing homes are not included
under this act. ‘Residential-only’ facilities (boarding houses) are not
considered to be Supported Residential Facilities and therefore do not come
under this Act. However the Act does require the person in charge of a
residential-only facility to seek assistance for a resident if that resident is in
need of care (S42).
22
5 BOARDING HOUSES IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA
5.1 Introduction
One of the main tasks for this study was to locate and identify the current
stock of boarding houses in South Australia. This was done through the
following strategies:
• Writing to all local government authorities asking them to identify
boarding houses in their area. This was only effective where LGAs
maintained a listing of boarding houses (usually where there were specific
by-laws in place);
• Liaison with the Metropolitan Fire Service, who maintain a list of
boarding houses in order to carry out fire safety inspections;
• Liasion with community-based organisations such as Westcare, Trace-A-
Place, and Shelter SA who maintain listings of boarding houses, and
• Field research, including “word of mouth” from current boarders and
proprietors, and field worker observation.
As much as was possible, visits were conducted to boarding houses that had
been identified. In some instances, access was not possible or appropriate,
but some assessment of the property could be gained ‘from the street’.
Despite these multiple strategies, the figures provided in this report are still
only indicative. It is inevitable that there are boarding houses not identified
by the study, including those of a size small enough to ‘escape’ local
government by-law requirements. The number of properties also fluctuates,
with boarding houses both opening and closing. Finally, it was often difficult
to determine whether a property should be ‘counted’ in the study, sometimes
because we lacked information about what the property actually was and/or
its current use, and sometimes because it was not clear whether the
property’s use met the definition. However, the study was able to identify a
number of boarding houses not known to any authorities, particularly
smaller domestic dwellings operating in suburban areas.
Employing the methods described above, the study identified 106 boarding
houses in the metropolitan area, housing approximately 1,100 people. A
further nine were identified in country areas housing approximately 60
people. Thus, overall 115 boarding houses were located in South Australia,
with an estimated resident population of 1,160 (Table 5.1).
23
Table 5.1: Audit of boarding houses - Type of boarding house, by location,
South Australia
35
Chamberlain C (1999), op.cit.
36
Hefferan P (1988), op.cit.
24
In addition, a number of inner city low-cost private hotels were also
identified as accommodating short and long term residents who could be
regarded as boarders, amounting to approximately 100 beds. (These have not
been included in the tables and figures reported here.) There would also be
similar hotels in the suburbs; however surveying these premises was beyond
the scope of this study.
Overall most boarding houses are located in older established and low-
income suburbs. In the metropolitan area, the Local Government Area of
Adelaide has the highest proportion of boarding house beds, with close to
30% of the identified beds. Taken as a group, the western suburb LGAs of
Charles Sturt, West Torrens and Port Adelaide Enfield share over a third
(36.5%) of all identified beds.
The major share of the boarding house sector in the metropolitan area is in
the hands of private operators. Of publicly-owned properties, seven
boarding houses in the metropolitan area were managed and operated by Not
For Profit operators, accounting for 96 beds (8.7% of total metropolitan beds).
At the time of the study a further two properties were publicly owned (by the
South Australian Housing Trust) and leased to private operators. 37
37
Data classifies the Afton Private Hotel as a privately operated boarding house. However
management has since been transferred to a community organisation. Data does not include Russell
House and Glenelg House, both of which are owned by SAHT, as they were licensed SRFs during the
period of the study.
25
26
27
5.2.2 Age of properties
28
5.2.4 Standards and amenity
Whilst it was not the purpose of this study to carry out an assessment of
property standards, several observations about the standards of properties
can be made:
• It is common for outhouses, sheds and garages, some of fibro and tin
construction, to be used as bedrooms, especially in poor standard
properties. It is also common for poor quality properties to be out of sight
behind high fencing.
• Properties owned by the Housing Trust and those operated by Not For
Profit organisations were observed to be consistently of good standard;
while privately owned and operated properties were of variable standard.
29
5.2.5 Development of new stock
The main area of expansion of the sector is private operators buying up low
cost domestic dweelings in the inner suburbs to establish boarding facilities
which predominantly house single men. Housing small numbers of residents
means that these properties may not be covered by LGA regulations (where
they exist).
30
6 RESIDENT PERCEPTIONS OF BOARDING HOUSE
LIFE
Sandra is in her late 40’s. She had a difficult childhood - her father died when
she was young, her mother had several nervous breakdowns and spent some
time in an institution. Sandra was placed in foster care for a time. She went to a
number of schools; after leaving school early she had periods of low-paid work
interspersed with unemployment. Sandra says she is heavily dependent on
alcohol and prescription medication and has used speed and other drugs. She
has been hospitalised for mental health problems.
Sandra has been married twice: firstly to Ron with whom she had two children,
and secondly to Geoff with whom she had two more. One of these children was
fostered out after Geoff claimed it was not his. With both husbands she lived
mostly in private rental accommodation. When Sandra separated from Geoff,
he was given custody of their child.
Sandra lived in private rental and on and off with her mother after the marriage
break-up. This ended when her mother moved into a single bedroom Housing
Trust house.
Sandra has lived in three different boarding houses. She left the first as the drug
and alcohol affected state of other residents scared her. She quite liked the
second one because of its closeness to shops but thought it was too big, with too
many fights with the police always attending. She stayed there for almost three
years. Sandra lived at the third boarding house for 12 months. This boarding
house was across the road from her mum’s house.
At this boarding house Sandra paid $70 per week for a room with a single bed, a
heater, fridge and television. Her room was a fibro outbuilding at the rear of a
single fronted cottage housing six other residents. There was no common area.
She did not feel the facilities were up to scratch and thought there should have
been a lounge room. She would also have liked a double bed but her room was
too small. Sandra’s boyfriend lived in a single room in the same boarding
house. She spent her days going to the pub getting takeways and drinking them
in her room with her boyfriend or in the small backyard area and popping in
and out on mum.
Last year Sandra moved into a private rental flat after she inherited some
money. But soon after she moved back to a boarding house having spent most
of her money.
6.1 Methodology
One hundred and forty residents of boarding houses in metropolitan
Adelaide were interviewed, approximately 12% of the estimated resident
population. The interview covered housing history and future plans, plus
perspectives of their accommodation and rights.
Ethics approval for the study was provided by the Department of Human
Services Research Ethics Sub-Committee. The interviewer was a trained
social worker with extensive experience in housing and homelessness.
Residents were offered reimbursement of $10 for their participation.
31
Boarding houses were selected as a site for interviews in a process which
included obtaining a spread of participants across Adelaide and from
different sizes and standards of facilities. A small number of facilities were
excluded due to concerns for the interviewers’ safety on the property. Once a
site was chosen, the interviewer made an introductory visit to the facility,
where possible speaking to the proprietor or caretaker/manager. Usually, a
time was made to return to the boarding house based on the
proprietor/manager’s views on when a reasonable number of residents
would be present, and the most convenient time to interview. This ranged
from 10am to late afternoon, and on occasion evening or night visits.
The interviewer then visited the premises at the identified time and
approached residents, explaining the study, giving them an information
leaflet, and inviting them to participate. Residents obviously incapacitated
(eg due to alcohol use) were not approached. Interviews were anonymous.
In larger premises, and based on the advice of the proprietor, the interviewer
attempted to get a spread of "type" of residents using factors such as age,
length of tenancy and life situations. On occasion, the interviewer re-visited
the premises in order to include certain residents, eg those who were
working.
Ages ranged from 17 to 74 years, with a mean age for men of 41.8 and for
women 38.9 years. Almost one third were aged between 35 and 44. Only
9.3% were aged 25 or under, and a small number (3.6%) were aged 65 or over
(Figure 6.1). Most commonly residents were aged between 35-44 years.
32
Figure 6.1: Age of residents
Age of Residents
45
40
35
30
25
Number
20
15
10
5
0
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and over
Age (years)
All but a very few said that they were single, with most (59.3%) never
married (Table 6.2). Approximately a third were either divorced, separated
or widowed. This suggests an isolated population with a high rate of
relationship breakdown and few partner relationships.
Marital Status %
Divorced 20.7
Married (registered and defacto) 3.6
Never married 59.3
Separated 11.4
Widowed 0.7
No response 4.3
Total 100.0
Total number 140
33
Table 6.3: Income of residents
Income source N %
Wages 26 18.8
Newstart Allowance 49 35.5
Disability Support Pension 44 31.9
Age Pension 7 5.1
Youth Allowance 1 0.7
Other Allowance or benefit 3 2.2
Other income source 8 5.8
Frequency Missing = 2
Almost half (46.4%) of those in receipt of wages were aged 35 to 44 years. The
older aged groups had a higher proportion on Centrelink pensions or benefits
(Table 6.4).
Centrelink Other
Age of resident (yrs) benefits Wages Income Total
% % % % N
15-24 64.3 21.4 14.3 100.0 14
25-34 72.4 20.7 6.9 100.0 29
35-44 65.1 30.2 4.7 100.0 43
45-54 84.8 12.1 3.0 100.0 33
55-64 86.7 6.7 6.7 100.0 15
65 and over 83.3 16.7 0.0 100.0 6
Total 74.3 20.0 5.7 100.0 140
34
sector, with 14.3% having lived in boarding houses for less than one month
(Table 6.5).
The older population were more stable in their tenancy: 90% of respondents
aged 55 years or over had lived at their current address for over 12 months,
including one who had lived in the same boarding house for over 20 years.
By contrast, most (57%) of those aged 34 or under had lived at their current
address for less than 3 months. This suggests a combination of a mobile
younger population and a more stable population of older residents.
The most common reason for leaving a previous boarding house was
dissatisfaction with the standard of the premises and the other residents:
"There was too much noise and arguments and police visiting";
"There were lots of IV drug users and my room was broken into";
"The place was a dump and the people were desperados".
35
Conflict with other residents, which could precipitate eviction, was the next
most common reason for moving from one boarding house to another: "I was
kicked out over a dispute"; "Problems with other residents"; "I had a fight and got
evicted".
Some said they just moved around a lot, from place to place and one form of
short-stay accommodation to another, and no particular reason had triggered
the move.
Other moves between boarding houses were triggered by the need to change
location or area. Reasons could be employment related ("The site work I was
doing was finished"; "I found casual work in this area"); or about relationships:
("I came to Adelaide to see my son"; "I’m travelling around looking for family"; "I
moved to Adelaide to get away from a woman".)
Housing history N %
Homeowner 24 17.1
SAHT/Public Rental 34 24.3
Private Rental Market 113 80.7
Lived with friends 76 54.3
Caravan Park 18 12.9
Shelter 10 7.1
Slept rough 28 20.0
Total 140
Note: Residents may have lived in more than one
housing situation so percentages do not add up to
100
"I lived in private rental with my partner, then I left and lived with a friend and then
in a homeless shelter. I moved into Housing Trust accommodation but I had a
breakdown, then went to live with my parents for a while".
"I lived in private rental for over 14 years. I couldn’t afford the rent rises and
became homeless".
36
"I lived in a few flats in Melbourne and also stayed at mates’ places. I spent time in
gaol for drugs and violence. I lived in boarding houses and moved around a lot. I
stayed in an unlicensed unregistered car with a mate for 6 months, living on the
beaches".
Reasons N %
Relationship with partner breakdown 47 34.3
Family breakdown 2 1.5
Mental health 9 6.6
Drugs use 8 5.8
Travel/ transience 29 21.2
Other health 4 2.9
Financial pressures 15 10.9
Homelessness 15 10.9
Eviction 8 5.8
Conflict with other tenants 16 11.7
Prison 9 6.6
Work related accommodation 8 5.8
No reasons given 15 10.9
Other 15 10.9
Total 137
Relationship breakdown was the single most common issue cited, and
identified as a factor by over a third. Commonly, housing was lost when a
partner relationship split. Sometimes the female partner remained in the
housing (perhaps with the children) and the man moved out; or the family
home was sold. Financial pressures following separation restricted housing
options. This was sometimes matched by deterioration in other life domains
and a loss of family connections. Shame and embarrassment at present
circumstances could reinforce isolation and disconnection, and limit ability to
reconnect with family, particularly children.
37
"I lived in private rental with my wife, and then we bought a house. After we
separated she got the house. I got a pay out but I blew it on gambling. I went to live
in a boarding house".
"I lived in private rental and then a Housing Trust place with my wife. After we
split up she stayed in the house with our daughter".
"I mainly lived in Defence Force housing interstate. After I left that I lived in a
caravan and then my wife and I were in public housing. After we separated my wife
moved to Adelaide so I moved here too, to be close to the children, but I really don’t
see much of them. I wouldn’t want to tell them I’m living in a boarding house".
"I was born in New South Wales. I’ve been travelling around Australia picking up
casual work for 20 years. I’ve lived in flats in Brisbane and Sydney".
"I lived in public housing with my family, then I was placed into foster care. Since
then I’ve traveled all my life working odd jobs and living in caravan parks, boarding
houses and a flat".
Many respondents had shared housing with others. The ending of these
arrangements precipitated housing insecurity and/or housing decline:
"I lived with my mother in private rental. When she died I couldn’t afford the rent
on the house. I lived in boarding houses and then lived rough in a car until I came to
Adelaide."
"I lived with friends in a share house but the house was sold and we had to move. We
couldn’t get another house so I came here".
"I lived in a flat in New South Wales. I had to leave there because the other residents
were into speed and other stuff. I came here to get away from them".
Drug use, mental health problems and financial pressures all contributed to
housing instability and poor housing options:
38
"We owned a house in Perth and lost it due to my ex dealing in speed. We came to
Adelaide, lived in private rental. We lost the house, lived in a shelter, split up".
"I lived in flats and then got a Housing Trust place. I fell behind in rent and it got
trashed by druggies. I left the house to get away from them".
Bob, an aged pensioner, spent his working life in remote areas in construction gangs.
His accommodation was in camps, huts, caravans or tents and he has never lived in
private or public rental in Australia or owned a house. He moved into his current
boarding house when he retired, and has been there for a number of years. It suits his
needs.
"I was in gaol interstate for 18 years. I moved into private rental then I came to
Adelaide and lived in boarding houses".
38
‘Primary homelessness’ refers to people without conventional accommodation ie those sleeping
rough, or in makeshift shelters. ‘Secondary homelessness’ refers to those moving frequently from one
form of temporary accommodation to another ie in crisis accommodation, staying with friends or
family, or staying in boarding houses on an intermittent basis. (Chamberlain, (1999), op.cit.)
39
years in prison, and says that, compared with gaol, his current
accommodation is a palace.
Physical Facilities Poor Fair Good Very Good Total Total number
Toilet 14.4 38.8 41.0 5.8 100.0 139
Bathroom/shower 15.8 36.7 41.7 5.8 100.0 139
Laundry 24.4 28.9 39.3 7.4 100.0 135
Kitchen and cooking area 21.7 33.3 37.7 7.2 100.0 138
Common area 9.7 25.8 53.2 11.3 100.0 62
Personal room 9.4 29.7 52.9 8.0 100.0 138
Furnishings 16.7 39.9 38.4 5.1 100.0 138
Other 22.2 11.1 33.3 33.3 100.0 9
Less than half the residents assessed the standards of the toilet, bathrooms,
laundry, kitchen, and furnishings as good or very good. Almost a quarter
reported that the laundry facilities were poor, and about one fifth described
the kitchen as poor. Residents were most likely to rate their own room as
good or very good.
Residents were also asked to rate the standard of general services provided at
their accommodation.
40
number of respondents. By contrast, meals (available to 17% of respondents)
and a linen service (available to 21%) were rated highly.
Welfare organisations were the first choice for most residents (50.7%) if in
need of food or clothing. Residents specifically mentioned using Hutt Street
Day Centre, the Magdalene Centre, Adelaide Day Centre, Port Adelaide
Central Mission, the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul Society, Westcare
and Anglicare. The familiarity with these services suggest the vulnerability
of many in the boarding house population and their marginal status with
regards to the basic needs of food and clothing.
41
Table 6.10: Residents, Person or organisation contacted by nature of need
Sick and Looking Had a Need
needing In need of for other complaint advice on
Person or organisation would medical food or In need of board and about the a personal
you contact if you were treatment clothing money lodgings landlord matter
Another boarder 0.7 0.7 5.0 19.3 7.3 6.4
Family 1.4 8.6 17.9 0.0 6.4 23.6
Friends 1.4 6.4 12.9 4.3 3.6 33.6
GP 70.7 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 3.6
Hospital 17.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0
Professional person 2.1 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.4 6.4
Proprietor 0.7 0.0 0.0 4.3 42.1 5.0
Welfare Organisation 2.9 50.7 2.9 2.9 2.1 2.1
Centrelink 0.0 0.7 15.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
Housing Information Service 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 3.6 0.0
Newspaper 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 0.0 0.0
Residential Tenancies Tribunal 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.0
Other 1.4 0.7 2.1 7.9 5.7 3.6
None 0.7 30.7 40.0 10.7 6.4 15.7
No response 0.7 1.4 4.3 3.6 15.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Total number 140 140 140 140 140 140
Respondents were also asked if they had a health/welfare person (eg a social
worker or worker in a day centre) with whom they were in regular contact.
28% (39 respondents) reported that they did (Table 6.11), and most commonly
a General Practitioner followed by mental health services.39
Professional support N %
Accommodation service 1 2.6
Correctional services 2 5.1
GP 14 35.9
Hospital services 2 5.1
Mental health services 9 23.1
Welfare organisations 5 12.8
Not stated 8 20.5
Total respondents 39 100
The interviewer observed many instances of unmet need for support services
amongst the boarding house population, particularly amongst the younger,
more transient residents who were not connected into a local area. Stories
related during the interviews suggested that some residents had lost
39
The interviewer felt that there may have been some non-disclosure in relation to this question, in
particular that people were wary of identifying contact with services which were felt to have some
stigma attached – for example, mental health and welfare.
42
accommodation due to problem behaviour which may have been averted
with support.
Some residents indicated that the social interaction in the boarding house was
significant to them, and better than the alternative of isolation in the
community ("There’s people to talk to and I’ve got my own room").
"Companionship" was identified as a positive aspect of boarding house life by
most respondents (see following section), but simultaneously “dealing with
other residents” was a downside. Finding people you could get on with and
talk to was important, especially for those dependent on others in the
boarding house for their social needs, but not necessarily easy to achieve.
43
had a chance of a Trust home with the same access to facilities he would take
it.
Respondents were asked to identify both the positive and negative aspects of
living in a boarding house (Figure 6.2). Affordability, location, proximity to
transport and services, and the flexible and "easy to manage" nature of
boarding house life were commonly identified, and the opportunity to be
around others was also valued by most. On the other hand, having to share
facilities and problems with other residents were negatives identified by
more than half, and insecurity of tenure and the standard of the
accommodation were issues for almost half. Privacy was a common concern.
A small but not insignificant proportion of respondents (15.7%) indicated that
they had fears for their own safety in boarding houses.
140
120
Number of responses
100
80
60
40
20
0
e
e
n
ts
y
ip
s
er
t
e
ag
et
om
tio
ice
bl
po
en
sh
th
f
a
ca
an
Sa
O
ns
rv
n
m
h
rd
io
Lo
se
m
ge
of
tr a
ffo
n
pa
to
se
n
to
/a
to
ra
ap
n
y
e
ar
e
Se
os
Co
e
Ea
os
e
Ch
Cl
ibl
Cl
ex
Fl
44
Figure 6.3: Negative aspects of living in a boarding house
90
80
70
Number of responses
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ty
y
er
ns
s
ts
s
rd
g
d
ac
fe
ie
tie
th
ar
in
tio
lo
Sa
lit
riv
de
O
us
li
d
nd
ci
op
ci
an
p
si
ho
fa
fa
la
of
re
st
er
of
ith
re
e
ck
th
er
n
ar
cu
rd
tio
o
th
La
sh
da
se
of
g
O
od
in
to
an
In
ck
l
ea
m
St
La
in
m
D
av
co
H
Ac
Most respondents (82%) thought they got “good value” for the board they
paid. Reasons given include location, proximity to transport and services,
cheapness compared with private rental and the inclusion of utilities in the
rent charge.
Residents were asked if they were satisfied living in their present location –
and most (81%) said they were. A good location meant being near to services,
shops and public transport. Boarding houses provided a means of living in
an otherwise unaffordable location (eg the inner city). For low income
earners this opens up access to a life-style, services and facilities that they
would not otherwise have.
“It’s right in the heart of the city”.
“It’s very handy to shops and transport”.
45
“It’s close to all the things I know”.
“I couldn’t find anything else for this price”.
Respondents were asked to identify the size of boarding house they prefer –
and most said they liked the size they were currently living in. Residents
preferring smaller boarding houses said they were more ‘homely’ and less
likely to contain problem residents. However, those preferring larger
facilities said they provided a better opportunity to meet others.
Respondents were asked if there was anything they would like to change
about their current living environment. This was answered in widely varying
ways. A few indicated that there was nothing they wanted to change, though
for different reasons ("It’s quite smooth the way things are"; "I’m happy here and
I’m doing some gardening"; "I wouldn’t feel secure with change".)
The majority indicated that they wanted to change something, but this ranged
from the radical ("Everything about my life") to the detail ("A new shower
screen").
Over a third (37%) identified change for them as connected with moving.
Only 14% (a group of older men) viewed the boarding house as their long
term home. Some of these had "retired into" the boarding house after a life of
high mobility or work-based housing: “I’ve had my running around and seen what I
wanted”; “They’ll have to carry me out in a box”.
46
A quarter said that they were looking, or were planning to look for, their
preferred rental accommodation. For some an upgrade in accommodation
seemed a real possibility ("I move into my flat tomorrow"), while for others it
seemed more in the realm of vague intentions ("I’ll look for a flat when I get my
inheritance"; "I’ll move one day"; "I need to make friends (to move out and share a
flat with)"; "It’s a dream I don’t see happening".)
Some were awaiting specific events which would trigger a move: "I’ll stay
until my Workcover case is finished"; "I’ll go home when my father settles down";
"I’ll stay a few more weeks until I get my truckie licence".
14% indicated the boarding house was a temporary stop in their travels,
usually interstate: "I’m travelling to meet my girlfriend"; "I’ll keep travelling after
summer".
A small number (7.5%) said they were in the boarding house simply because
they had no choice: "I don’t have anywhere else to go"; "I have no other choices".
Several were in the boarding house for health related reasons, which may or
may not be resolved: "I’m not well enough to live out in the community" (a
respondent with mental health problems), "I’m here for medical reasons".
45.0
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
Boarding House
%
20.0 Private Rental
15.0 Housing Trust
10.0 In a house I ow n
With family /friends
5.0
0.0
1 2 3 4 5
Preference
47
Whilst the most common first preference was a boarding house, this still
accounted for less than 30% of responses, and most said their first preference
was something else. Even those who chose a boarding house as their
preferred option often said this was based on what they considered possible
(usually affordable) given their circumstances. Boarding houses are usually
an option of necessity, not choice.
Those who did not select boarding houses as their preferred housing were
asked to identify why they couldn’t live in their first choice. A key factor in
responses was affordability. Public housing is the most viable alternative, but
limited availability, waiting lists and debt preclude entry.
Others were living in a boarding house during their long wait for public
housing ("I can’t afford other accommodation; I’m on the Trust waiting list").
Another group (9.4%) saw the boarding house as their only viable alternative
to public housing, but were still not on the waiting list for Trust
accommodation ("I should be on the SAHT waiting list but I haven’t put my name
down"). Three were hoping to get share accommodation, cheaper than sole
tenancy .
Age was also a factor, raising the issue of affordable, decent and stable
housing for aged people with no personal security (“I’m too old to go on the
Trust waiting list”.)
15.6% cited relationship issues as the reason for not being in their preferred
accommodation – the boarding house was the option they could afford given
they couldn’t live with a partner or family: "I don’t have family I can live with";
"I can’t go home at the moment".
48
lying on his bed watching TV as there is not enough room to put a chair next
to his bed.
Matt manages a boarding house with a resident caretaker. He has recently
been instructed by the Metropolitan Fire Service to install smoke detectors,
and is in the process of complying. He says he has tried to weed out problem
residents and thinks that increasing the rent has achieved this. The house
rules state that tenants who have not paid their rent by 11 am Saturday will
have their locks changed. Matt says this practice has been carried out. The
house rules state that it is a Guest House and as such does not come under
the Residential Tenancies Act.
Under the regulations of the Residential Tenancies Act, ‘house rules’ are to be
in writing and proprietors are required to post (a) a copy of the house rules
and (b) a copy of the regulations in a prominent location in the boarding
house.
84% of participants said that there were rules for boarders in the facility in
which they lived. Typically rules covered issues such as rent payment,
cleaning, noise, visitors and privacy. More extreme examples of rules
reported included changing tenants’ locks if their rent is not paid and a ban
on women on the premises.
In some boarding houses residents said they were given a printed copy of the
house rules at the commencement of their residency, in others a copy was
posted in a prominent place such as the kitchen door or walls, while in others
managers or caretakers conveyed rules verbally.
Respondents were asked if they were aware of the rooming house regulations
under the Residential Tenancies Act, if there was a copy available in their
boarding house, and if they had the RTA information pamphlet (Figure 6.5).
Most respondents were not aware of the regulations. Only a very few had
access to the Rooming House Regulations and even fewer had a copy of the
RTA information pamphlet for boarding house residents. These responses
suggest both a low rate of compliance with the legislation, but also the
ineffectualness of the current regulation regime in relationship to rooming
houses.
49
Figure 6.5: Rooming House regulations under RTA, residents awareness,
copy of regulations and information leaflet available
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Yes
50%
No
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Awareness of Copy available Information leaflet
regulations
6.10 Summary
The resident interviews confirm a high degree of social, emotional, housing
and financial vulnerability amongst the boarding house population in
Adelaide. Residents are in poverty, and living in unstable and marginal
housing, usually because it is all they can afford. Most have long histories of
unstable and poor quality housing and homelessness. Isolation and
disconnection from family and significant relationships is common. The
majority are either unemployed or have a disability (most commonly mental
illness40) which precludes participation in the work-force. Further
implications of the findings, including the different sub-groups within the
boarding house population suggested by the study, the tenuous and insecure
nature of boarding house accommodation, and gender issues, are discussed
in Chapter 10.
40
Based on interviewer observation
50
7 PROPRIETOR INTERVIEWS
7.1 Methodology
Twenty owners/proprietors were interviewed, representing approximately
25% of all owners/managers in South Australia. The interview sought
information about the proprietor themselves, the boarding house and its
facilities, services that were provided, occupancy, management issues and
future plans.
The length of time proprietors had managed their boarding houses ranged
from 6 months to 40 years. 60% of proprietors had managed their business
for 10 years or more. About a third of those interviewed were aged 60 years
or over, and the average age was 57 years. The older proprietors were ‘long
termers’ who have a strong identification with and long history in the sector.
These proprietors, however, are the group most likely to be moving out of the
industry over the next few years due to their age.
For some proprietors, the boarding house was part of a long-term family
business in which family members were involved in the management and/or
maintenance of the house.
Most proprietors (16) did not live on-site; however most properties (14) had a
live-in caretaker or manager. Only two properties had neither a proprietor
nor caretaker on-site.
41
This includes the Afton Hotel, which at the time of writing was leased by SAHT to a private
operator, and which is now operated by a community organisation.
51
The most common type of accommodation provided was that of ‘bed with
cooking facilities’; however a minority provided part board (with some
meals) or full board (two or three meals per day).
Most proprietors said they provide a linen service, often simply a clean set of
sheets on arrival and a cleaning service. Off street parking was available at
almost half the facilities managed by the proprietors.
Just over half the proprietors reported a ratio of between 5 and 11 persons per
toilet and/or bathroom. Most reported that they had a ratio of more than 6
people to each washing machine available.
In over half the properties proprietors said there was at least one inside or
outside area available for socialising between residents, ie either a lounge
room and/or an outside area (eg outside table and chairs with shelter from
the weather). Conversely, in almost half there was no designated communal
space. Several proprietors commented that they deliberately did not provide
communal areas as this would encourage fights between residents and it was
better that residents stayed in their rooms or off the property.
The majority of boarding houses had single bedrooms (ie sole occupancy);
however 6 proprietors reported that some bedrooms in their properties were
shared.
Proprietors estimated that most of their current residents (60%) had lived at
the present boarding house for up to a year. A quarter of proprietors said
they had at least one resident who had lived at the property for more than ten
years. Thirty years was the longest continual occupancy reported.
52
Table 7.1: Estimated length of stay
Length of stay of current residents N %
Less than one week 27 6.2
One week to three months 96 21.9
Three months to one year 139 31.7
Over one year 177 40.3
Total 439 100.0
Boarding house proprietors agreed that there had been a change in the type
of residents during the time they had managed their boarding house.
Previously, residents were seen to be from a more homogeneous group of
mainly men, some of whom worked and who were more likely to drink
alcohol than use illicit drugs, had less assets and were more settled and well
behaved. Today’s residents were perceived to be a more varied group and
included:
• Increased numbers with mental health problems
• Increased numbers of drug users
• Increased numbers needing support services
• Residents having more possessions and expecting a higher standard of
accommodation
• More transient people who were less honest
• More young people
• More unemployed people and more students
• More people for whom boredom was a problem.
All but one proprietor said some types of people were considered
unacceptable as boarders. Most considered people who were drug affected
(‘druggies and junkies’) to be unacceptable; as were, to a lesser extent,
‘trouble makers’ (those with extreme or aggressive behaviour) and those with
mental health problems. Three would not accept young people and one
considered Aboriginal people to be unacceptable.
53
7.5 Tenancy Issues
There was considerable variation in the amount of rent charged, ranging from
$40 per week for ‘bed with cooking facilities’, to $198 per week for full board.
For the 14 boarding houses charging for ‘bed with cooking facilities’, the cost
ranged from $40 per week to $105 per week with an average of $74 per week.
Most saw the boarding house as a good property investment and just over
half stated it was a good business overall. Only one proprietor considered his
business unsuccessful, although approximately one third said it was
unprofitable. Most (private) proprietors felt the property was a good
investment.
54
7.7 The future
Most proprietors intend to stay in business at least in the short-term, with all
but one saying they will still manage their business in 12 months time and
almost all in 5 years time. For the older proprietors, the decision to remain in
business would be dependent on relatives’ willingness to take over.
Indications are that over the next few years the ‘older school’ of proprietors
will gradually move out of the business, and younger family members will
probably bring a different attitude to administration, if they choose to take
over at all. Conversely, new proprietors are emerging, but with quite
different approaches to business and expectations about profit and
investment. Increasingly, boarding houses will be seen as an investment,
rather than a job and ‘career choice’ for proprietors. This ‘new breed’ will not
be so involved in administration and the day to day operation of properties,
and are more likely to own a string of properties (namely, small facilities in
suburban houses of a size which may escape regulation) and appoint a
resident caretaker in what could be perceived as an exploitative arrangement.
The profit margin will become more important, and a proprietor more likely
to move their property over into other uses if it appears more desirable or
easier. Tolerance with and support to difficult tenants is not likely to
increase.
Conversely, the not-for-profit sector are looking to expand their ‘share’ of the
market, and increasingly view boarding houses as an important form of social
housing and a necessary service. The capacity of the sector to increase stock
to compensate for the downturn or changing patterns in the private sector is
dependent on policy and funding decisions by government.
55
7.8 Summary
Boarding houses in South Australia are predominantly operated by private
individuals who operate a single boarding house, although a minority own
and operate several properties. Unlike boarding house sectors interstate
boarding house in South Australia tend to be smaller properties located in the
suburbs and run by an individual or family.
For most proprietors, the business is profitable; with vacancy rates generally
low. Most proprietors had been in the industry long term and report that the
nature of residents has changed, with residents increasingly being younger
and more involved in drug use and with mental health issues. A significant
proportion of current proprietors may not continue to operate in the future,
given the age profile of owners and those who reported an unprofitable
business. Boarding houses will be increasingly seen by the private sector as
an investment, rather than a career choice. The capacity of the not-for-profit
sector to expand to meet demand for this form of accommodation is
dependent on government support.
56
8 INFORMATION FROM SERVICE PROVIDERS
Two round-tables were held with service providers, one in the inner city and
one with western metropolitan area services, to provide a forum for key
agencies and organisations to input into the research.
Inner city day services reported that a proportion of their clients were
boarding house residents. Data collected by one such agency – Byron Place
Community Centre – indicated that persons living in boarding houses made
up 7.3% of their client group.43
One inner city housing service reported maintaining a list of boarding house
contacts that it shared with other agencies, to assist in finding
accommodation for clients. Other metropolitan services reported keeping
their own lists (for example various Housing Trust offices, FAYS offices and
Crisis Care) which were sometimes out of date. It appeared that a number of
agencies referred clients to boarding houses but that there was no systematic
process for doing this.
42
This is not an exhaustive list.
43
Data indicates accommodation of client on the previous night; derived from annual census figures;
average for period 1996- 2000.
57
Concerns were also raised about the appropriateness of some of the referrals,
eg referring homeless families with young children to unvetted boarding
houses known by service providers to be high risk and of poor quality. It was
apparent that some boarding houses were used by agencies as a form of
emergency accommodation when other more appropriate options were not
available.
58
9 NATIONAL DIRECTIONS
This chapter provides a snapshot of state and local government policy and
initiatives in relation to boarding houses in other States and Territories,
including:
9.1 Queensland
Recent data indicates that Queensland has 368 boarding houses
accommodating 5,500 people; 81% of these people reside in Brisbane.44
44
http://www.consumer.qld.gov.au/oft/oftweb. titled Accreditation, Minimum Standards for Hostels,
Boarding houses
59
9.2 Victoria
The Victorian Office of Housing manages a Rooming House program under
the Long Term Community Housing Program. The program is targeted to
low-income single people and couples with no children. Funds are provided
to local government and community housing organisations for the
construction and acquisition of boarding houses. A feature of the program is
joint venture arrangements.
Most boarding houses are in the inner city municipalities of Port Phillip and
Yarra; however a significant number are found in regional towns throughout
Victoria. The current rooming house market is increasingly tending towards
smaller properties.
In Victoria boarders and lodgers are covered under the Residential Tenancies
Act (1997) and this coverage is extended to long term residents of hotels
where residence has been for more than 60 consecutive days. Disputes are
resolved through the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
The current Act is the consolidation of all tenancies legislation into one Act.
The Western Australia Residential Tenancies Act 1987 does not apply to any
residential tenancy agreement where the tenant is a boarder or lodger.
45
Mott P (2001) In New South Wales the answer is – Boarders rights or Homeless Nights Paper
presented at the 4th Australasian Conference of Tenancy Tribunals & Associated Bodies, Adelaide
60
The New South Wales Department of Housing has set up an Office of
Community Housing. Its role is to:
A number of boarding houses have been purchased under this program and
managed by community housing organisations. Boarding houses are also
being leased under the Long Term leasing program where properties are
leased for up to 10 years from private owners.
Boarders and Lodgers are not covered under the Residential Tenancies Act
(1987) in New South Wales. The Act specifically excludes residential
agreements where the tenant is a boarder or lodger. A Boarders and Lodgers
Action Group (BLAG) has been campaigning for the introduction of
legislative rights for boarders and lodgers.
The State Environmental Planning Policy No. 10 (SEPP10) has been amended
to provide mechanisms for the retention of low cost accommodation. Under
this policy, where alterations, additions, demolition or conversion to another
use is being proposed, state and local governments are required to consider
such factors as available alternative accommodation and the financial
viability of the property in their assessment of the proposed development.
9.5 Tasmania
The Tasmanian Department of Housing manages most of the small stock of
boarding houses in Tasmania. The Residential Tenancy Act 1997 does not
apply to any premises or part of premises used or occupied by a boarder or
lodger.
61
10 BUILDING THE PICTURE
This chapter summarises and discusses the trends and issues that have
emerged from the research from all information sources.
In addition, there are very few boarding house beds available to women,
severely limiting their affordable housing options. Information from service
providers indicates that safety is a major concern for women in
predominantly male settings.
62
10.4 Compliance with the Residential Tenancy Act
This study was able to observe some (but not all) of the key areas required
under the Residential Tenancy regulations, and identified that compliance by
proprietors with requirements under the Residential Tenancies Act was poor
(particularly in the private sector).
The regulations require that there be written house rules that are posted in a
prominent location. These house rules should not be ‘harsh or
unconscionable’; must only relate to health and safety of persons and
property; and must comply with the code of conduct for proprietors, which
(amongst other things) specifies that proprietors will not
‘unreasonably restrict residents’ quiet enjoyment of their room and facilities, and
their peace, comfort and privacy’.
Boarding houses in the not-for-profit sector and those owned by the Housing
Trust were observed to have a much higher level of compliance with and
understanding of the provisions of the Regulations.
Information from the Residential Tenancies Tribunal indicates that since the
regulations came into effect only a small number of cases have been brought
before the tribunal. There were 6 hearings in 2000 and 7 in 2001, comprising
less than 0.1% of the total matters heard in each of those years. Of the 13
applications, 10 were lodged by the landlord for vacant possession, with 7
being successful. Two were dismissed and one withdrawn before hearing.
One landlord application for compensation was successful. One tenant
application for bond was successful and one withdrawn before hearing.
63
10.5 Fire safety
The responsibility to monitor fire safety in boarding houses appears, in a
practical sense, to be shared between local councils and the South Australia
Metropolitan Fire Services. SAMFS have instituted a program of inspections
of boarding houses and other similar properties such as backpacker hostels.
This inspection program is based on a list of relevant properties compiled by
the SAMFS, in part on advice from local councils as to the boarding houses
and other similar properties in their area.
64
The differing definitions between council regulations, the Residential
Tenancies Act and the Supported Residential Facilities Act mean that some
premises will ‘slip through the gaps’, for example ‘community houses’
operated by some Supported Residential Facilities, where several people
share a house under the supervision of the SRF. They are not ‘captured’
under boarding house licensing provisions where Councils define the
occupancy of five, six or more, residents to be a boarding house; and if these
residents are not receiving personal care services from the Supported
Residential Facility they will not be covered under the provisions of the
Supported Residential Facilities Act.
These factors, coupled with the gentrification of inner city areas and the
conversion of larger properties to domestic dwellings or apartments, are
likely to result in a significant proportion of current private boarding house
stock being lost over the next decade.
65
• Younger people tend to be much more mobile and less in contact with
support services than the older population.
The study has confirmed that residents, as well as being poor, often
experience other personal and social vulnerabilities. Boarding houses
provide marginal accommodation, to people in very vulnerable housing
circumstances which are well-defined as homelessness. Gender issues are
also raised. These are discussed below.
The research found a high degree of social, emotional, housing and financial
vulnerability amongst the boarding house population. Residents are in
poverty, and living in unstable and marginal housing, usually because it is all
they can afford. Most have long histories of unstable and poor quality
housing. Isolation and disconnection from family and significant
relationships is common. The majority are either unemployed or have a
disability (usually mental illness) which precludes participation in the work-
force.
66
• Poor, and it’s home: This small group (usually older men) have lived in
the boarding house sector, and often the same house, for years and regard
it as their home. Some were previously reliant on employment-related
accommodation, and were often highly mobile. They have few contacts
with family, and are reliant on the boarding house for their social
interaction. They are strongly connected to particular facilities, although
they have no long term tenancy protection and few rights. They are
particularly vulnerable as they move into old age, and with age-related
frailty, as they lack other housing options and personal supports and
resources, and have little protection of their housing or other rights.
• Poor and not looking for stable housing: These residents are highly
transient and/or travelling and do not have, or necessarily aspire to, a
permanent home. Their moving around is usually marginal and
associated with other issues, such as drug use, offending, and breakdown
of family and relationships.
• Poor but they’ve got a home somewhere else: A small number of residents
are living in a boarding house for now but have a home elsewhere – for
example backpackers, students and low-income people in town for work
or reasons.
Alternatively, the sub-groups proposed by Horton47 also ring true for this
study, namely, people on a downward spiral (through housing options); on an
upward spiral (“stepping up” from shelters or sleeping rough), the immobile
group (who have lived in boarding houses for years) and the travelers.
47
Horton N (1990), op.cit.
67
10.8.2 Marginal housing
The research confirms that boarding house residents live in relatively cheap
and insecure accommodation, often of very poor quality, and with very
limited effective protection of their rights. The housing histories of
respondents demonstrates the marginal position of boarding houses in the
housing market – residents have often experienced steadily declining quality
of housing, with a boarding house the last stop before the streets or a shelter.
Alternatively many residents have actually lived on the streets and in
shelters, and for them the boarding house is a step up – but still tenuous and
insecure. It is unlikely that many residents have much support available to
them to consolidate their position in the housing market and move on to
better, more stable housing.
68
11 RENEWING THE BOARDING HOUSE SECTOR
11.1 Boarding houses within the broader housing market
Boarding houses play a distinct role in the low-cost housing sector. Boarding
house accommodation can be regarded as a desirable ‘step up’ from sleeping
rough or living in squats, shelters, or other forms of marginal
accommodation. Alternatively it can be seen as an undesirable ‘step down’
from more secure tenures such as private rental or public housing.
This study confirms that boarding houses are a marginal housing option at
the interface between homelessness and sustainable and appropriate
housing. The stories of residents provide a vivid picture of people at this
interface.
There are also structural issues in relation to the rental market which mean
that some people fare worse than others, and these factors limit the
opportunity for boarding house residents to participate in the broader
housing market.
69
In terms of affordability, boarding house rental is markedly less costly than
private rental. According to this study, the average rent paid by boarding
house tenants for ‘bed and cooking facilities’ was $74 per week, in a range
from $40 per week to $105 per week. This compares with private rental rates
of $120 per week for a flat/unit and $160 per week for a house for the period
2000/2001.48
While the number of private rental properties in South Australia has been
increasing49, the private rental market has been tightening. Data for 2002
indicates that the vacancy rate is somewhere between zero and one per cent –
well below the accepted market equilibrium of three per cent.50 Average
weekly rents for private rental have been increasing consistently since 1996 –
the average weekly rental of a 2 bedroom unit has risen from $115 pw in 1996
to $148 for the March 2002 quarter, an increase of 29% over this time. In such
a tight rental market, those with the least capacity to pay and ‘compete’ for
limited stock will miss out.
Studies in this area indicate most residents would prefer not to live in a
boarding house. These people need decent quality, affordable housing
options, and, in some cases, support to make and maintain this transition.
48
Data refers to nominal median weekly rents. Source: Median Weekly Rent for Private Rental
Dwellings, Population Strategies and Research Branch, DHS.
49
ABS Census data for occupied private dwellings shows that the number of private rental dwellings
increased by 7% from 93,043 in 1996 to 99,548 in 2001.
50
Housing Industry Prospects Report, March 2002.
51
For data see the Triennial Review of the South Australian Housing Trust 1997/98-1999/2000, p39
70
However, boarding houses continue to have a distinct and necessary role as a
housing option, due to their affordability and other characteristics. Boarding
houses offer a certain level of anonymity; social opportunities; flexibility
(‘walk in, walk out’) and ease of tenure (furniture is provided; white goods
are not needed); and remove the responsibilities of running a household and
paying bills. They are often located in inner city or near city locations, close
to shops and services, very important features for people on low income.
These particular qualities of boarding house accommodation lend themselves
to take-up by people with limited financial and other resources or particular
lifestyles. For these reasons it is important that this distinct function and
nature of the sector is clearly articulated in policy and planning related to
housing and assistance to vulnerable adults.
71
The study has also documented consistently poor compliance with and
knowledge of the requirements of the Residential Tenancies Act in relation to
Boarding Houses. This should be considered by government, including in
the context of the review of this Act.
In itself, reliance on the continued use of current stock is also not desirable.
Chamberlain and Johnson (2001) propose that a minimum level of housing
amenity acceptable by Australian standards is equivalent to a small flat or
unit (ie an individual has their own living room, bedroom, kitchen, bathroom,
plus an element of security of tenure). In South Australia most boarding
houses are older properties where lounge rooms, kitchens and bathroom
facilities are shared. The few exceptions are where new premises managed
by community agencies have been purpose-built in conjunction with state
housing authorities and incorporate features such as en-suite bathroom and
toilet facilities. Arguably, the current stock does not meet minimum
community standards as discussed above; and by this definition, people
living in boarding houses can be considered homeless. 53
52
For example, recent changes to fire safety standards for boarding houses in the City of Yarra in
Victoria have been directly associated with a number of boarding house closures. In Adelaide, the
YMCA ceased operating because of concerns that it was not able to meet new fire safety requirements.
53
Referred to as ‘tertiary homelessness’ (Chamberlain, (1999), op.cit.)
72
• Partnership approaches to the funding and development of new stock.
11.3.1 Design
11.3.2 Management
54
For a fuller discussion of design features see for example, Fraser and Associates (1999), Rooming
House Feasibility Study: A report prepared for the South Australian Housing Trust and the
Adelaide City Council, draft copy, pp 33-35 for a discussion of environmental and physical design
specifications for the Rooming House Feasibility Study, and the City of Port Phillip Community
Housing Program for descriptions of various rooming house projects in the City of Port Phillip.
55
Cited in Fraser and Associates, (1999) op.cit. p. 27
73
11.3.3 Funding and development
Local government has played an active role interstate, with models including:
Whilst there is some contact between boarding houses residents and support
services, without assertive outreach it is likely that some residents will ‘slip
through the net’.
74
Interstate, assertive outreach programs funded through a variety of sources
including HACC, disability and mental health, provide assistance to
vulnerable adults in marginal accommodation such as boarding houses and
Supported Residential Facilities. Queensland will shortly be introducing a
targeted response model which aims to link boarding house residents with
primary health services and other services, social and recreational
opportunities, and personal care services.
11.5 Conclusions
This study has confirmed that:
• Boarding Houses have a limited capacity to meet housing needs and most
residents would prefer alternate accommodation.
75
12 REFERENCES
Adelaide City Council (1975) City of Adelaide Residential Programme Low
Rent Boarding and Lodging Accommodation, Community Centres,
Submission to the Department of Urban and Regional Development.
Badcock, B. and Urlich Clother, D. (1978) Low Rent Boarding and Lodging
Accommodation in the City of Adelaide, a report for the City of
Adelaide Planning Commission.
Chapman, R. and Provis, J. (1991) Fritz and White Bread, Report and Review
of the Community Accommodation Support Service Southern Boarding
House Social Work Team, South Australia.
Clearly, M., Woolford, P., and Meehan, T., (1998) Boarding house life for people
with a mental illness: an exploratory study, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Mental Health Nursing, vol 7.
Davidson, A., Phibbs, P. and Cox, G., (1998) Inner Sydney Boarding House
Project, research report for the NSW Department of Planning by the
Urban and Regional Planning Program, University of Sydney.
Fraser, G. and Assoc. (1997) West End Boarding and Rooming House
Strategy, unpublished report.
76
Fraser, G. and Associates with Mark Bagshaw and Greenway International
(1999) Rooming House Feasibility Study: A report prepared for the
South Australian Housing Trust and the Adelaide City Council, draft
copy.
Horton, N. (1990) Up, Down or Out? Property market pressures and the
Homeless in inner Melbourne, A study of the users of inner
Melbourne’s low cost single room accommodation, Econsult.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity, Human Rights and Mental Illness
(1993) Report of the National Inquiry into the Human Rights of
People with a Mental Illness, AGPS.
77
Residential Tenancies (Rooming House) Regulations 1999, Government of South
Australia.
Spivac G. (1997) City of Port Phillip Housing Strategy, City of Port Phillip.
Wintrington (1997) Options for Housing with Care and Support for Frail
Elderly Homeless People in the Inner City of Adelaide, prepared for
the Frail Aged Persons Working Party, Feb 1997, unpublished paper.
Wulff, M. Yates, J. and Burke, T. (2000) Who Does the Private Rental Market
Work Well For in Australia - and Who Does it Fail?, report prepared
for the Research Advisory Committee, Australian Housing Research
Fund.
78