Training and workforce development in Specialist ......Table 3 Approximate number of SHS staff in...

Training and workforce development in Specialist Homelessness Services

6 February 2019

Prepared for: Homelessness NSW, Domestic Violence NSW and Yfoundations

Natasha Cortis and Megan Blaxland

Acknowledgements This report draws on the survey responses of 441 SHS staff in NSW. We are grateful to those who generously participated, and to the SHS Learning and Development Advisory Group, and Industry Partnership, for shaping the survey instrument. Any errors or omissions are those of the authors.

Research Team Dr Natasha Cortis and Dr Megan Blaxland

For further information: Name +61 2 9385 7800

Social Policy Research Centre UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia T +61 2 9385 7800 F +61 2 9385 7838 E [email protected] W www.sprc.unsw.edu.au

© UNSW Australia 2017

The Social Policy Research Centre is based in the Faculty of Arts & Social Sciences at UNSW Sydney. This research was commissioned by Homelessness NSW.

Suggested citation: Cortis, N. and Blaxland, M. (2019). Training and workforce development in Specialist Homelessness Services. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/

Social Policy Research Centre 2018 i

Contents Contents .......................................................................................................... i Tables ............................................................................................................ iii Figures .......................................................................................................... iv

Glossary ........................................................................................................ vi 1 Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1

2 About the research .................................................................................. 3

2.1 Design ............................................................................................... 3 2.1 Data collection ................................................................................... 4 2.2 Analysis and reporting ....................................................................... 4

3 About respondents .................................................................................. 5

3.1 Locations ........................................................................................... 5 3.2 Gender .............................................................................................. 6 3.3 Age .................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Cultural background .......................................................................... 7 3.5 Working arrangements ...................................................................... 8 3.6 Size of organisations ......................................................................... 9 3.7 Experience of homelessness ............................................................ 9

4 Qualifications ......................................................................................... 10

4.1 Level of highest formal qualification ................................................ 10 4.2 Field of study ................................................................................... 11 4.3 Perceptions of preparedness .......................................................... 12 4.4 Current study ................................................................................... 13 4.5 Other registrations ........................................................................... 13

5 Working in the homelessness sector ..................................................... 14

5.1 Experience in the homelessness sector .......................................... 14 5.2 Motivation to work in the homelessness sector ............................... 14 5.1 Experiences of service delivery ....................................................... 16 5.2 Awareness, understanding and confidence ..................................... 20 5.3 Collaboration ................................................................................... 22

6 Recent experiences of training and development ................................. 23

6.1 Days of training ............................................................................... 23 6.2 Perceptions of amount of training received ..................................... 24 6.3 Characteristics of most recent training ............................................ 26 6.4 About the SHS Training calendar .................................................... 27 6.5 Barriers to training ........................................................................... 28 6.6 Training priorities ............................................................................. 30

7 Organisational environment .................................................................. 33

7.1 Prioritising training ........................................................................... 33 7.2 Supervision ..................................................................................... 35

Social Policy Research Centre 2018 ii

7.3 Mobility and turnover ....................................................................... 36

8 Service leaders’ perspectives ................................................................ 38

8.1 SHS and organisational income ...................................................... 38 8.2 Client characteristics and need ....................................................... 38 8.3 Workforce tiers in SHS services ...................................................... 40 8.4 Managers’ training priorities ............................................................ 41 8.1 Management and leadership training .............................................. 43 8.2 Training of Board and Management Committee members .............. 44

9 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 46

Appendix A: Supplementary Tables ............................................................. 47

Social Policy Research Centre 2018 iii

Tables Table 1 Areas of NSW that respondents worked in or managed 5 Table 2 Respondents’ hours and contract types 8 Table 3 Approximate number of SHS staff in respondents’ organisation 9 Table 4 Most common fields of study 12 Table 5 Extent to which respondents felt their most recent SHS training developed various capabilities 27 Table 6 Perspectives on barriers to training by service specialisation 29 Table 7 Perspectives on barriers to training by location 29 Table 8 Priorities for training 31 Table 9 Average number of staff at each tier 40 Table 10 Proportion of leaders who said it was a priority for SHS staff to develop skills to work with each client group 43

Social Policy Research Centre 2018 iv

Figures Figure 1 Gender profile by service focus ...................................................... 6 Figure 2 Age profile by service focus ............................................................ 7 Figure 3 Cultural identities of SHS workers .................................................. 7 Figure 4 Full and part time work by contract type ......................................... 8 Figure 5 Proportion of respondents with lived experience of homelessness . 9 Figure 6 Qualifications by role .................................................................... 10 Figure 7 Qualifications by gender ............................................................... 11 Figure 8 Qualifications by specialisation ..................................................... 11 Figure 9 Perceptions of how well respondents’ highest qualification prepared them to work with people affected by homelessness ................................... 12 Figure 10 Proportion of staff currently undertaking a formal course of study, by age (%) 13 Figure 11 Years of experience in sector and role ..................................... 14 Figure 12 Agreement with the statement “I am able to spend enough time with each client” ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 13 How often staff are in contact with SHS clients, by role ............ 17 Figure 14 Agreement with statements about resourcing and access, by specialisation ................................................................................................ 18 Figure 15 Agreement with statements about resourcing and access, by location 19 Figure 16 Awareness of key standards and resources ............................. 20 Figure 17 Proportion who rated their level of understanding as ‘good’ or ‘excellent' 21 Figure 18 Confidence with aspects of working together ........................... 22 Figure 19 Days of SHS relevant training undertaken in the last 12 months, by specialisation ........................................................................................... 23 Figure 20 Days of SHS relevant training undertaken in the last 12 months, by role 24 Figure 21 Perceptions on the amount of training, by specialisation .......... 25 Figure 22 Perceptions on the amount of training, by role ......................... 25 Figure 23 How most recent SHS-related training was delivered (%) ........ 26 Figure 24 Whether most recent training was accredited (eg AQTF, VETAB or recognised for credit towards a tertiary program) (%) .............................. 26 Figure 25 How relevant is the training offered in the SHS training calendar to your needs? .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 26 Agreement with the statement “Training is a priority in my workplace”, by specialisation ........................................................................ 33 Figure 27 Agreement with the statement “Training is a priority in my workplace”, by location ................................................................................. 34 Figure 28 Staff with supervisory responsibilities, by number of staff supervised 35 Figure 29 Receipt of clinical or professional supervision, by service specialisation ................................................................................................ 36 Figure 30 Satisfaction with supervision ..................................................... 36

Social Policy Research Centre 2018 v

Figure 31 How many positions respondents had held in the last five years . 37 Figure 32 Where respondents hope to be working in 12 months ................. 37 Figure 33 Contribution of SHS to organisational income .............................. 38 Figure 34 Proportion of leaders who said client needs, complexity and poverty have increased in the last few years ................................................ 39 Figure 35 Number of students on placement usually hosted by the SHS each year 41 Figure 36 Leaders’ reports of how many SHS staff had undertaken FACS-funded training .............................................................................................. 42 Figure 37 Leaders’ ratings of amount of training received by SHS staff ... 42 Figure 38 Leaders’ perspectives on training issues for Boards and Management Committees ............................................................................ 45

Social Policy Research Centre 2018 vi

Glossary FACS Family and Community Services (NSW)

IP Industry Partnership

SHS Specialist Homelessness Services

SPRC Social Policy Research Centre

Social Policy Research Centre 2017 1

1 Executive Summary This report analyses the perspectives of workers and leaders on training needs, and other learning and workforce development initiatives in the Specialist Homelessness Services (SHS) sector. Information is based on survey responses of 441 staff involved in delivering SHS in NSW, which was conducted in October and November 2018. By monitoring trends in capacity and sustainability in SHS, the research aims to inform sector-wide and organisational initiatives to develop capacity to ensure all SHS clients receive high quality services. Key findings are as follows:

Worker characteristics

In line with findings from previous surveys, the data shows how the SHS workforce is female dominated, with 83% of respondents being women. Around 1 in 5 SHS workers were aged 55 or over. Workers in domestic violence focused services tended to be older than those focused on youth or generalist services. This indicates a need for domestic violence services in particular to plan for the retirement of a large proportion of staff in the next decade.

Around 1 in 8 (13%) of workers were from an Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander background, and nearly the same number (12%) said they speak a language other than English at home. 17% of respondents said they had lived experience of homelessness.

Three quarters of respondents were working full time, and around half were in organisations with between 5 and 20 staff. Around a quarter had worked in the homelessness sector for less than 2 years, and the same proportion had worked in the sector for more than 10 years.

Qualifications

SHS staff are highly qualified relative to the Australian workforce and recognise the need to develop further capacity in relation to homelessness services.

The vast majority of staff have a post-school qualification. The largest group were qualified at diploma level (40%), or at bachelor degree level (31%), with a further 14% qualified at postgraduate level. Higher proportions of men, staff in generalist services, and those in senior roles had higher level qualifications. One in four said they were currently undertaking a course of study, and this was more common among younger SHS workers.

However, only half of respondents said their qualifications prepared them ‘extremely well’ or ‘very well’ to work with people affected by homelessness, and 14% reported that their qualification did not prepare them well for work in this field. This underlines the importance of both ensuring relevant content is promoted in formal qualification


pathways, and continuing to deliver specific developmental opportunities tailored to current SHS workforce needs.

Working in the homelessness sector

The majority of SHS staff, including organisational and service leaders, said they were in daily contact with SHS clients. However, onlyhalf of practitioners agreed they were able to spend enough time with each client, and two in five agreed there were enough staff to get the job done. The vast majority of service leaders (over 90%) perceive the complexity of clients‘ circumstances to have increased in recent years.

Training and development

Overall, four in five respondents agreed that training is a priority in their workplace (81%). This was highest in youth services (88%). Three in five practitioners had undertaken 3 days or more of SHS relevant training in the last 12 months. Most said the most recent training they attended was delivered off site, and one in three were unsure if the training they last attended was accredited or recognised for credit.

The vast majority of staff (86%) were aware of the SHS training calendar, and more than half said the training on offer was either extremely or very relevant to them.

While most respondents said the amount of training they received was just right or almost enough, over a quarter of participants in generalist and domestic violence services described the amount of training they received as ‘nowhere near enough’. One in three service leaders across the sector describe the amount of training received by SHS staff as ‘nowhere near enough’ (32%).

Barriers to training were different for staff in different locations, especially in relation to the proportion who nominated travel and cost related factors. There were also locational differences in the proportions who said the likely disruption to service delivery and their heavy workload made it hard to attend training.

Priorities for future training include trauma informed care and practice, housing pathways, domestic and family violence, case management, and child protection. Many also said they would appreciate training in management and leadership, while others suggested working with specific client groups, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, CALD communities, and others. High proportions of service leaders said it was a priority for their SHS staff to develop skills to work with people with mental health needs, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.


2 About the research This report provides detailed analysis of the characteristics and status of the workforce in Specialist Homelessness Services in NSW, and workforce development and training needs across the sector. The survey was commissioned by the Industry Partnership, a collaboration between the three peak bodies for SHS – Domestic Violence NSW, Yfoundations and Homelessness NSW. Data was collected online over a two-and-a-half-week period in October and November 2018, with the survey completed by 441 workers. These workers were across all regions of the state and service specialisations, and included CEOs, managers, co-ordinators, frontline practitioners, project and policy officers, and staff in a range of other roles required to organise and deliver SHS. The study was designed to inform learning and development initiatives led by the SHS Industry Partnership, and to contribute more widely to sector development efforts, including by providing information about workforce characteristics and staff perspectives which can be tracked over time.

2.1 Design The survey was designed to be completed by all staff involved in delivering SHS in NSW. It built on previous surveys which have informed understanding of the SHS workforce and workforce development needs, such as the NSW Homelessness Staff Survey of Workforce Issues1, and a related organisational survey2. The questionnaire was shaped by the Industry Partnership and the SHS Learning and Development Advisory Group.

Questions captured information about respondents’ roles, the types of services they delivered, and their level of contact with clients. It also explored their experience in the sector and in their roles, and issues of training and training needs. This included questions about the amount of training respondents received and their perceptions of this, their experiences of the most recent SHS related training they undertook, any barriers to learning and development, and future training priorities. It also captured respondents’ experiences of supervision, their understandings of various aspects of SHS policy and practice; demographics, and intentions for the next 12 months. An additional set of questions were included for CEOs and senior

1 Industry Partnership (2017) NSW Homelessness Staff Survey of Workforce Issues, 2017, Industry and Workforce Development Project https://www.shssectordev.org.au/sites/shs/files/public/NSW_Homelessness_Staff_Survey_of_Workforce_Issues_2017.pdf

2 Cortis, N. and M. Blaxland (2017). Workforce Issues in Specialist Homelessness Services (SPRC Report 08/17). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney. http://doi.org/10.4225/53/592628989f0ab

https://www.shssectordev.org.au/sites/shs/files/public/NSW_Homelessness_Staff_Survey_of_Workforce_Issues_2017.pdf

https://www.shssectordev.org.au/sites/shs/files/public/NSW_Homelessness_Staff_Survey_of_Workforce_Issues_2017.pdf

http://doi.org/10.4225/53/592628989f0ab


managers who had oversight for training and development, or development needs in their service, to capture their perceptions of needs across their services.

2.1 Data collection To reach SHS staff throughout NSW, an invitation to participate, and the survey link were sent to a contact person in each of 168 services. The invitation invited the contact person to circulate information about the survey to all staff involved in SHS. The sector received reminders from the research team, and from the Industry Partnership.

To maximise response, the Industry Partnership informed the sector of the survey prior to the survey launch. The research team distributed reminders through the survey period and also offered a small incentive to encourage participation. In addition, the Industry Partnership sent reminders and underlined the importance of participating to CEOs and other SHS staff in meetings and forums through the research period. It was targeted to paid staff only, and not to volunteers. The survey was administered using Qualtrics software. The protocol and instruments were granted ethical approval from the University of New South Wales (approval number HC180764).

2.2 Analysis and reporting In total, 441 responses were completed in the 2.5 week time frame. Responses came from respondents located across all parts of NSW, service specialisations and roles. Analysis was conducted to explore issues and characteristics for the SHS sector overall, and how trends and perspectives differ across different types of services and groups of staff. For this reason, analysis is based primarily on cross-tabulated responses. To show differences of interest, throughout the report data is provided in a way that enables comparison of characteristics and perspectives. For many issues explored in the survey, differences were found by service specialisation, along with respondent role, location and gender. These differences are demonstrated throughout the report.


3 About respondents This section provides information about the characteristics of staff involved in delivering SHS, including the location of their service, their gender, age, cultural background, and working arrangements.

3.1 Locations To indicate location, respondents were asked to select which areas of NSW they provide SHS in. Those who were working across areas or overseeing services in multiple areas were able to select all areas that applied. FACS districts were used. A profile is provided in Table 1. This shows survey respondents were located throughout NSW. As some districts had smaller numbers of respondents (e.g. Far West NSW), geographic breakdowns are provided for some measures in this report using the FACS client service districts in the first column of Table 1.

Table 1 Areas of NSW that respondents worked in or managed

FACS client service district District Number of respondents

Hunter New England and Central Coast

Hunter New England 67 Central Coast 20

Illawarra Shoalhaven and Southern NSW

Illawarra Shoalhaven 37 Southern NSW 24

Mid North Coast and Northern Mid North Coast 35 Northern NSW 30

Murrumbidgee, Far west and Western NSW

Murrumbidgee 31 Far West NSW 9 Western NSW 23

Western Sydney and Nepean Blue Mountains

Western Sydney 65 Nepean Blue Mountains 43

Sydney, South Eastern and Northern Sydney

Northern Sydney 24 South East Sydney 22 Sydney 67

South Western Sydney South West Sydney 45 Note: Of the 441 respondents, 406 delivered SHS in one area only, 22 delivered SHS in 2 areas, and 13 delivered services in more than 2 areas. As such, the total number of respondents is more than 441.


3.2 Gender As shown in the Industry Partnership’s 2017 survey of SHS staff, SHS workers are mainly women. In 2018, 83% of respondents were women. This was the same proportion found in 2017 (see Industry Partnership, 2017, page 7). The 2018 data shows how the proportion of staff who were women was different in different parts of the SHS sector. As shown in Figure 1, there were higher proportions of women in services focused on domestic violence (94%), and lower proportions in youth-focused services (75%).

Figure 1 Gender profile by service focus

Note: Generalist, youth and domestic violence categories are derived from the question “What is the main focus of your SHS service”. As 47 participants indicated their service had more than one focus, the total for all (441) is less than the sum of each category.

3.3 Age The age profile of the SHS sector is shown in Figure 2. This shows that the majority of staff (53%) were aged between 36 and 55. Around 1 in 5 (19%) were aged 55 or over. However, age also differed by service specialisation. Domestic violence services had an older staff profile. In these services, 27% were aged 55 or over, compared with only 13% of those in youth services. The age profile within the homelessness sector suggests a need for domestic violence services in particular to plan for workforce sustainability in the context of the likely retirement of large proportions of staff in the next decade. Full data is shown in the Appendix, see Table A.1.

8575

9483

1522

615

1 3 2

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Generalist (n=185) Youth (n=201) Domestic violence(n=102)

All (n=441)

% women % men % other / prefer not to say


Figure 2 Age profile by service focus

Note: As 47 participants indicated their service had more than one focus, the total for all (441) is less than the sum of each category. One respondent from a youth service did not report their age.

3.4 Cultural background To capture diversity in the SHS workforce, respondents were asked whether they identify as Aboriginal and / or Torres Strait Islander, or whether they speak a language other than English at home. Responses are shown in Figure 3. Of respondents focused on domestic violence, 18% said they identified as from an Aboriginal and / or Torres Strait Islander background, which was higher than in other specialisations.

Figure 3 Cultural identities of SHS workers

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Generalist (n=185) Youth (n=200) Domestic violence(n=102)

All (n=440)

24 or under 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 and over Missing

18

10

1413

11 10

1412

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Domestic violence Youth Generalist All

Aboriginal and / or Torres Strait Islander

Speaks a language other than English at home


3.5 Working arrangements Almost three quarters of respondents were working full time (74%), defined as working 35 hours or more per week. However, a slightly higher proportion of staff were working full time among those employed on a permanent or ongoing basis (78% of whom were working full time), compared with those on fixed term contracts (61%) or who were employed on a casual basis (31%) (see Table 2 and Figure 4). It should be noted that casual employees tend to be difficult to engage in workforce surveys, and the number captured in this survey may underrepresent this group.

Table 2 Respondents’ hours and contract types

Casual Fixed term contract

Permanent / Ongoing Missing All

n % n % n % n % n % Part time (< 35 hours) 11 69% 23 39% 78 21% 2 100% 114 26%

Full time (35 hours or more) 5 31% 36 61% 284 78% 0 0% 325 74%

Missing 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 0 0% 2 0%

All 16 100% 59 100% 364 100% 2 100% 441 100%

Figure 4 Full and part time work by contract type

69%

39%21% 26%

31%

61%78% 74%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Casual Fixed term contract Permanent /ongoing

All

Full time

Part time


3.6 Size of organisations Respondents were asked approximately how many staff work in SHS in their organisation. Results are shown in Table 3 by specialisation. A substantial proportion of respondents in generalist services (21%) said there were less than five SHS staff in their organisation, whereas in youth services, only 6% said there were less than five SHS workers in their organisation. At the other end of the spectrum, 25% of respondents focused on youth said their organisation employed more than 50 SHS workers, which was much higher than among those focused on domestic violence (3%) or who were from generalist services (9%). Youth-focused services therefore appear to be delivered from organisations which are larger than those delivering other types of SHS services.

Table 3 Approximate number of SHS staff in respondents’ organisation

Less than 5 5 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 50 More

than 50 Not sure / missing Total

n % n % n % n % n % n % Generalist (n=185) 38 21 57 31 42 23 27 15 17 9 4 2 185

Youth (n=201) 11 6 43 21 50 25 40 20 51 25 6 3 201

Domestic violence (n=102)

12 12 31 30 17 17 36 35 3 3 3 3 102

All (n=441) 55 13 114 26 101 23 94 21 65 15 12 3 441

3.7 Experience of homelessness The survey asked respondents if they identify as somebody with lived experience of homelessness, and 17% said they did. This varied, but not substantially, across service specialisations, as shown in Figure 5. While many of those who reported having lived experience of homelessness may have themselves been homeless, others may have experience via a family member or friend. The nature of their lived experience was not captured.

Figure 5 Proportion of respondents with lived experience of homelessness

1920

1417

0

5

10

15

20

25



4 Qualifications The survey asked a series of questions about respondents’ highest formal qualifications, including level and field of study. It also asked whether respondents were currently completing a formal course of study.

4.1 Level of highest formal qualification The biggest group of respondents had a diploma level qualification (40%), while a further 31% had a degree level qualification, and 14% had a postgraduate degree. 15% of respondents were qualified at below diploma level. The qualification mix of staff differed across levels, gender and specialisation. By role (Figure 6), those in more senior positions tended to be more likely to have post-graduate degree level qualifications, and fewer were qualified below diploma level, as would be expected. By gender (Figure 7), there were higher proportions of men than women in the sector with postgraduate degrees, and lower proportions with diplomas. Differences by service specialisation are also shown (see Figure 8). This shows a slightly higher proportion of those in generalist services had a bachelor or postgraduate degrees, and that around half of respondents in domestic violence (49%) and youth services (48%) were qualified at diploma level.

Figure 6 Qualifications by role

7% 3%13% 18%

26%15%

23%41%

43%41%

42%

40%

33%

39%

33% 28%21%

31%

37%

17%10% 12% 11% 14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CEO / orgleader

Manager AdvancedPractitioner

Practitioner Other role All

Below diploma Diploma Bachelor degree Postgraduate degree


Figure 7 Qualifications by gender

Note: 7 respondents who did not identify as men or women or preferred not to indicate their gender are omitted from this chart.

Figure 8 Qualifications by specialisation

4.2 Field of study Respondents with a post-school qualification were asked to indicate the broad field of study of their highest qualification. The largest group reported their qualification was in community services, youth work or counselling (44%). The next most important fields were social work (13%) and social science and social policy (12%).

1814

29

43

32 31

21

13

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Men (n=68) Women (n=366)

Below diploma level Diploma Bachelor degree Postgraduate degree

915 17 15

4948

3040

29 2534

31

13 12 20 14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Domestic violence(n=102)

Youth (n=201) Generalist (n=185) All (n=441)

Postgraduatedegree

Bachelor degree

Diploma

Below diploma


Table 4 Most common fields of study

Field of study n %

Community Services / Youth Work / Counselling 186 44 Social Work 56 13 Social Science / Social Policy 52 12 Business / Management / Economics 32 8 Psychology 27 6

Health / Nursing (eg allied health, community health, mental health) 18 4

Education / early childhood 13 3 Arts / Humanities (eg literature, creative arts) 10 2

Law / legal studies / dispute resolution 5 1

Science / Engineering / Technology 3 1 Other 20 5 Total 422 100

4.3 Perceptions of preparedness Around two thirds of respondents with post-school qualifications had obtained these in the last ten years (67.1%), and this group was asked how well they felt their formal qualifications prepared them to work with people affected by homelessness. Overall, half said their highest qualification prepared them either ‘very well’ (35%) or ‘extremely well’ (15%) for working with people affected by homelessness, and 14% said not so well or not at all. Those qualified at diploma level were most likely to report their qualifications prepared them very well or extremely well (see Figure 9).

Figure 9 Perceptions of how well respondents’ highest qualification prepared them to work with people affected by homelessness

27%9%

16% 14% 14%

41%

36%

40%30% 36%

27%

39%29%

41%35%

5%17% 15% 16% 15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Below diplomalevel

Diploma level Bachelordegree level

Postgraduatedegree level

All

Extremely well

Very well

Moderatelywell

Not at all / notso well


4.4 Current study Around a quarter of respondents reported that they were currently undertaking a formal course of study, such as study leading to a Certificate, Diploma or Degree. While this didn’t differ by service specialisation, higher proportions of women (26%) than men (18%) were currently studying. As would be expected, younger workers were more likely to be studying. Among those aged under 35, a third (34%) were currently undertaking a formal course of study, and this was around a quarter (in the 35 to 44 age bracket, and 1 in 5 among 45 to 54 year olds.

Figure 10 Proportion of staff currently undertaking a formal course of study, by age (%)

4.5 Other registrations In addition to having formal qualifications, some respondents were registered with professional bodies. Around 1 in 9 (11.8%) said they were registered with a professional body, such as the Australian Association of Social Workers, Australian Community Workers Association, Psychology Board of Australia, or a similar body. Around 1 in 12 (8.8%) said they had a Medicare provider number, and only a small number (1.4%) said they were registered to provide services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme.

6674 80 86

75

3426 20 14

25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Under 35 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 and over All

Studying

Not studying


5 Working in the homelessness sector The survey asked a series of questions aimed at capturing experiences of working in the homelessness sector. This included the numbers of years of experience staff had, their motivation for working in the homelessness sector, and perceptions of access to services for clients, service resourcing, and aspects of job quality.

5.1 Experience in the homelessness sector A substantial proportion (around a quarter) had worked in the sector for more than 10 years. This is shown in Figure 11, along with the number of years respondents had spent in their current roles. This shows that while 40% of respondents had been in their current role for under 2 years, staff tended to have much more experience in the sector. A smaller proportion (25%) had worked in the sector for under 2 years. Further information is in the Appendix, see Table A. 2.

Figure 11 Years of experience in sector and role

5.2 Motivation to work in the homelessness sector

Reflecting their high levels of contact with SHS clients, when asked to briefly describe what they valued about working in the SHS, the biggest group (roughly half who answered the question) described how they value working with clients and

11

15

2623

14

10

2

17

23

32

16

3 27

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Less than 1year

1 to 2 years 2 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 11 to 20 years More than 20years

Missing

Years in homelessness sector Years in role


making a positive difference in their lives. Some examples of respondents’ contributions include:

Opportunity to assist people in crisis and encourage their personal growth though development of life skills to enable them a better quality of life. (Manager, Generalist Service)

I value working alongside people to support them with securing a place to call home. (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

Being able to provide effective long term solutions and support. (Practitioner, Youth Service)

Being able to assist in crisis situations and providing basic needs. (Manager, Generalist Service)

Providing professional help to people when they need it most. (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

Some valued working with diverse or specific communities or population groups, for example:

Providing support and assistance to the Aboriginal community. (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

Helping women rebuilding their lives after DV (Manager, Domestic Violence Service)

Others mentioned their colleagues and how much they respected their skill and dedication.

The support of some amazing colleagues. (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

A great crew of colleagues (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

Some spoke of collaboration and the benefits of working with like-minded services.

I love the variety of my role and being able to connect with other services and working with youth (Practitioner, Youth service)

The collaboration and sharing of services and information

And others discussed the broader advocacy nature of their work in striving for changes to policy and the community.

Giving back a voice to people that I work with. (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

Ensuring basic human rights are met and advocating for social justice. (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

Community approach to public advocacy for systems change (Organisational leader, generalist service)


5.1 Experiences of service delivery The survey also asked how often respondents are in contact with SHS clients. This is shown in Figure 13. As would be expected, almost all staff in practitioner roles were in contact with SHS clients on a daily basis, but even managers and CEOs reported having regular contact with SHS clients.

Those in regular contact with SHS clients were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement “I am able to spend enough time with clients”. Among practitioners, more than half agreed (57%), however, substantial proportions of practitioners and advanced practitioners disagreed with they had enough time with each client (see Figure 12).

Figure 12 Agreement with the statement “I am able to spend enough time with each client”

13%

40% 36%

57% 50%

71%29% 31%

16% 36%

17%31% 34% 27%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CEO / otherorganisational

leader

Manager,supervisor or

lead

Advancedpractitioner

Practitioner Other role

Disagree

Neutral

Agree


Figure 13 How often staff are in contact with SHS clients, by role

57%

73%

88% 91%

58%

84%

10%

13%

10% 8%

5%

9%

13%

7%

1%

11%

3%20%

7%2%

26%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


leader

Manager,supervisor or lead



Never, contact withSHS clients isn't aregular part of myjob

Less often than oncea week

Weekly or moreoften (but not eachday)

Every day


Respondents were also asked if they agreed with statements about service access and resourcing “People who need our services can get them” and “there are enough staff in my service to get the work done (see Figure 14). Around 2 in 3 respondents agreed that people who need their service could access it (65%) and this didn’t vary much across areas of service specialisation. There was more variation in staff perceptions of whether there were sufficient staff in their service to get the work done. Whereas only 31% of those in generalist services agreed, around half of youth-focused workers felt staffing was sufficient to complete workloads (47%).

Figure 14 Agreement with statements about resourcing and access, by specialisation

36%

47%

31%

40%

68% 68%62% 65%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


There are enough staff in my service to get the work done

People who need our services can get them


Figure 15 Agreement with statements about resourcing and access, by location

81 7975

6460 60

54

65

31 32

4841 44 45

29

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mid North Coastand Northern

Murrumbidgee,Far west andWestern NSW

IllawarraShoalhaven andSouthern NSW

Hunter NewEngland andCentral Coast

Western Sydneyand Nepean Blue

Mountains

South WesternSydney

Sydney, SouthEastern and

Northern Sydney

All

People who need our services can get them

There are enough staff in my service to get the work done


5.2 Awareness, understanding and confidence To capture respondents’ self-assessed level of competence in different areas of SHS provision, the survey asked about their understanding and awareness of different aspects of their work, and aspects of collaboration, such as sharing data, referring clients, and developing relationships. Responses provide some insight into areas which may be priorities for training and workforce development.

Figure 16 shows whether respondents were aware certain SHS standards and resources, and whether these informed their work. The SHS Good Practice Guidelines appear most influential. Almost 2 in 3 said these guidelines regularly informed their work, and only 10% were unaware of them. Results for the other resources were more mixed. Larger proportions were unaware of the CHAP Cultural Competency Standards (37%), and 33% were unaware of the cultural competency self-assessment tool. A quarter (26%) were not aware of the transition from QAS to the Australian Service Excellence Standards.

Figure 17 shows a high proportion of respondents rated their understanding of trauma informed practice highly (83%), as was the case for domestic and family violence (77%) and child protection (76%). Lower proportions said they had good understanding of outcome measurement (54%), tenancy laws (49%), and QAS (45%), although these may not necessarily be highly relevant to some roles.

Figure 16 Awareness of key standards and resources

2610

29 33 37

40

27

43 3841

34

63

28 29 22

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

QAS andtransition toAustralianService

ExcellenceStandards

SHS GoodPractice

Guidelines

WorkforceCapability

Framework

CulturalCompetency

SelfAssessment

Tool

CommunityHousing forAboriginal

People (CHAP)Cultural

CompetencyStandards

I'm aware of it,and regularlyinforms mywork

I'm aware of it,but it rarelyinforms mywork

Not aware


Figure 17 Proportion who rated their level of understanding as ‘good’ or ‘excellent'

8377 76

6866 65

5449

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Trauma informed/ client-centred

practice

Domestic andfamily violence

Child protection Youth Aboriginalcultural

competency

Social housing Outcomemeasurement

Tenancy Laws QAS standards


5.3 Collaboration Staff capacity for collaboration was captured through questions which asked how confident respondents felt with sharing information, making referrals, and developing external relationships. Results are shown in Figure 18. A majority said they were very confident developing relationships outside the organisation (61%) and referring clients to other services (59%), while a smaller proportion said they were very confident in sharing client data or other information with other organisations. However, on each item, only a small proportion rated themselves as ‘not so confident’. There was little difference on these measures by service specialisation.

Figure 18 Confidence with aspects of working together

9 4 4

52

37 35

39

59 61

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Sharing client data orother information with

other organisations

Referring clients toother services

Developingrelationships outside of

your organisation

Veryconfident

Fairlyconfident

Not soconfident


6 Recent experiences of training and development

The survey asked a series of questions about participants’ experience with training, including the amount of time they have spent, or would like to spend, on training, and their training needs and priorities, and any barriers. It also asked specific questions about the SHS Training Calendar.

6.1 Days of training The survey asked respondents to state how many days of SHS relevant training they had spent in the last 12 months on training. The most common response was ‘3 to 5 days’ (33%) followed by ‘less than 2 days’ (30%). Nineteen percent of respondents had attended no training at all, and 18 per cent had been for more than 5 days of training.

Consistent with the findings presented above that participants focused on youth services said their workplaces were supportive of training, the days spent on training were also slightly higher in youth services. Compared with other service specialisations, higher proportions of workers in youth -focused services said they did 3 to 5 days of training in the last year (36%) and smaller proportions said they did no training (15%). Interestingly, respondents from domestic violence services were more likely to say they had done a lot of training (24% attended more than five days) but also more likely to say that they had not attended any training (28%) than respondents from youth or generalist services.

Figure 19 Days of SHS relevant training undertaken in the last 12 months, by specialisation

2815

22 19

23

3033

30

27 3630

33

24 19 16 18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


More than 5days

3 to 5 days

Less than 2days

None


When responses to this question are compared across the role of respondents in their organisation, it is clear that most training is done by practitioners: 27 percent had attended for more than 5 days and another 32.3 percent had attended for 3 to 5 days. Advanced practitioners had not be involved in so much training, with just 5 percent doing more than five days and 35 percent doing 3 to 5 days. Participation in zero training was most common among CEOs and organisational leaders (26.7%) and managers, supervisors and lead practitioners (25.3%).

Figure 20 Days of SHS relevant training undertaken in the last 12 months, by role

6.2 Perceptions of amount of training received Consistent with the findings from open-ended questions where respondents frequently said that there could not be too much training, when asked their opinion on the amount of SHS training they receive, almost no respondents said that there was too much training. Overall, 38 percent said the amount of training they received was just right and 39 percent said it was almost enough. Those working in youth services, where respondents had generally attended more training, were more likely than others to say the received the right amount of training (45%), compared to generalist (32%) and domestic violence (30%) services. Just over a quarter of participants who worked for generalist and domestic violence services (27%) said that they had nowhere near enough training.

27 25 20 1632

4332 40

25

26

27

35 35

32

32

8 5

2711

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CEO / orgleader

Manager,supervisor,

leadpractitioner


Practitioner Other role

More than 5days

3 to 5 days

Less than 2days

None


Figure 21 Perceptions on the amount of training, by specialisation

Practitioners, who were more likely to attend more days of training than workers in other roles, were more likely to say that they received the right amount of training (43%). By contrast, CEOs and organisational leaders (21%) and managers, supervisors or lead practitioners (29%) to say that they received nowhere near enough training. Importantly, however, a majority of CEOs and organisational leaders (59%) said that they received almost enough training.

Figure 22 Perceptions on the amount of training, by role

27

19

2723

44

36

40 39

30

45

32

38

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


Nowhere near enough Almost enough The right amount Too much

21

2923 21

1723

59

43 4336 33

39

2128

32

4350

38

20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


leader

Manager,supervisor or

lead



Nowhere near enough Almost enough The right amount Too much


6.3 Characteristics of most recent training To understand more about the nature of SHS training attended in the sector, the survey asked, “Thinking of the most recent training you undertook related to SHS, how was it delivered?” Over three-quarters (77%) said they had travelled off-site for training, a sixth (14%) went to training delivered in their workplace and just under than a tenth (8.7%) took part in online training that was either webinars or self-paced online learning (see Figure 23).

Figure 23 How most recent SHS-related training was delivered (%)

The survey also asked if training was accredited for example by AQTF, VETAB or could be credited towards a tertiary program. Seventeen percent of respondents agreed, but a large proportion (34%) were not sure and half said the training was not accredited (49%). This is shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24 Whether most recent training was accredited (eg AQTF, VETAB or recognised for credit towards a tertiary program) (%)

Workplace, 14

Off-site, 77

Online, 8.7

Not Accredited, 49

Accredited, 17

Not sure, 34


Respondents were asked to think about their most recent SHS training, and to state to what extent they felt it helped improve various capacities. 40 percent said it helped their capacity to tailor responses for client groups ‘to a great extent’. And around a third said that training helped their ability to monitor and assess outcomes (35%), their capacity to network, collaborate and co-ordinate (33%) and their capacity to engage service users or community members (31%). Approximately half of all respondents felt that training in all these areas helped to some extent.

Table 5 Extent to which respondents felt their most recent SHS training developed various capabilities

To engage service users or community members

To tailor responses for client groups

To network, collaborate and co-ordinate

To monitor and assess outcomes

% % % %

Not at all 8 6 13 13 To some extent 57 50 49 49

To a great extent 31 40 33 35

Missing 4 3 5 4

6.4 About the SHS Training calendar Questions were also asked about the SHS training calendar specifically. Respondents were asked whether they were aware of the SHS training calendar, and those who were aware of it were asked a further question about its relevance and given the opportunity to comment on other aspects of it.

Overall, 86% were aware of the calendar. Of the 60 respondents who reported that they were not aware of the calendar, 50 (83%) were practitioners. The majority (36 staff, or 60% of those unaware of the calendar) had been working in the homelessness sector for less than 2 years, and a further 13 (22%) had been working in the sector for between 2 and 5 years.

While some rated the calendar as only ‘fairly’ relevant (37%), the majority said it was either ‘very relevant (34%) or ‘extremely’ relevant (18%). Neither awareness of the calendar, or ratings of its relevance, differed substantially across domestic violence, youth and generalist services


Figure 25 How relevant is the training offered in the SHS training calendar to your needs?

When respondents were given an opportunity to comment specifically on the SHS Training Calendar, their answers covered the same issues as when discussing training and professional development in general. Many spoke highly of the training, describing it as ‘great’, ‘fantastic’, ‘very good’. The most common themes were that there was insufficient training available outside of Sydney and that travel for training opportunities at a greater distance was costly and difficult to afford. One respondent took the time to calculate locally available training options, writing:

Current calendar has 49 programs of which the closest 2 are approximately 330 km and 220 km [away] So that's around 6 hrs and 5 hrs driving … and most training is much further away, generally 500 km each way or more. (Manager, Generalist Service)

In addition, respondents commented that training needed to be provided at a range of experience levels (especially at more advanced levels) and provide opportunities for participants to progress through training levels. Some criticised the calendar for offering the same courses repeatedly and not introducing new training options, and other commented that management training would also be beneficial. A couple commented that finding a place in popular courses could be difficult.

Specific suggestions for training topics in response to this question included: case notes; complex drug and alcohol issues; complex mental health issues; first aid; sexual assault; and approaches to advocacy.

6.5 Barriers to training To allow understanding of what could act as impediments to training, the survey asked, “In your SHS service, which (if any) do you think are main barriers to learning and development?” The survey provided five options. The largest group (54%) selected “Workload makes it hard to get away”, followed by “Disruption to service delivery” (46%) and “Have to travel too far” (45%). Fewer selected “Training on offer isn’t what is needed” (24%) or “Cost of training” (26%). This is consistent with findings in the 2017 Survey of Workforce Issues (NSW Homelessness, 2017).

18

3437

9 2 105

101520253035404550

Extremelyrelevant

Very relevant Fairly relevant Not thatrelevant

Not at allrelevant

Not sure


Within each service specialisation, workload difficulties were most commonly considered the main barrier to training: 60% of those in domestic violence services saw this as a barrier, as did 57% of those in generalist services and 49% of respondents from youth services. This is shown in Table 6.

Table 6 Perspectives on barriers to training by service specialisation

Workload makes it hard to get away

Have to travel too far

Disruption to service delivery

Training on offer isn't what is needed

Cost of training

% % % % % Domestic violence 60 54 43 24 30 Youth 49 48 46 24 18 Generalist 57 41 50 25 26 All 54 45 46 24 24

Table 7 shows how perspectives on training barriers differed by area. There were notable differences in relation in the proportions who said that having to travel too far was a barrier to training. Whereas 75% of those from Murrumbidgee, Far West and Western NSW selected distance as a barrier, only 16% of those in the Sydney, South Eastern and Northern Sydney areas. Those in the Sydney area were also more likely to say that the training on offer wasn’t what was needed. Cost was seen as a barrier by relatively high proportions of respondents from the Mid North Coast and Northern NSW areas.

Table 7 Perspectives on barriers to training by location

Workload makes it hard to get away

Have to travel too far

Disruption to service delivery

Training on offer isn't what is needed

Cost of training

% % % % % Hunter New England and Central Coast 58 51 48 24 31

Illawarra Shoalhaven and Southern NSW 41 55 46 20 20

Mid North Coast and Northern NSW 45 61 31 21 39

Murrumbidgee, Far West and Western NSW 61 75 57 18 29

Western Sydney and Nepean Blue Mountains 57 36 50 22 12

Sydney, South Eastern and Northern Sydney 64 16 48 39 25

South Western Sydney 60 22 44 22 13 All 54 45 46 24 24


Corresponding with these figures, when asked to comment on training issues and barriers to access, a large group of respondents working with services located outside of Sydney said that training was difficult to access. They felt that locally available training was too limited in scope, but that travelling to attend training was costly both in terms of finances and time, sometimes too costly to be viable. Some hoped for financial assistance to make training more affordable, for example:

Training costs such as travel and accommodation need to be subsidise, as these costs directly impact on smaller services and those located in regional and remote communities. (Manager, Domestic Violence Service)

Other barriers to accessing training included:

• The availability of places, a number said that courses were often full or that waiting lists were too long.

• Challenges covering for staff while they attend training, or challenges for staff to find time in busy schedules to attend.

• Difficulties being able to attend due to workplace issues, for example, training not being on the days that part-time or casual staff work, or organisational requirements that training be attended outside of work hours.

• There was interest among a small number of respondents in online training, most commonly among workers located outside of Sydney.

6.6 Training priorities The survey also asked staff about their about priorities for training content. Around four in five respondents said trauma informed care and practice was a priority (81%), and 2 in 3 each said housing pathways and domestic and family violence were (65%) (see Table 8). Smaller proportions said work health and safety, managing staff and introduction to the SHS program were priorities, but even for these lower priority areas of practice, there were substantial proportions of respondents who did prioritise them (over a quarter).

Across areas of specialisation, the most common priorities differed slightly. For example, among those focused on domestic violence services, the highest priority area for training was domestic and family violence, followed by trauma informed care and practice, and child protection. For respondents from youth-focused services, the highest priority areas were trauma informed care and practice, child protection, and case management. Among those in generalist services, priorities were trauma informed care and practice, housing pathways, and domestic and family violence. Top priorities by service specialisation are shown in the Appendix, see Table A. 3.


Table 8 Priorities for training

n %

Trauma informed care and practice 356 81 Housing pathways 288 65 Domestic and family violence 288 65 Case management 275 62

Child protection 275 62 Cultural competency 264 60 Self-care 258 59 Client engagement and consultation 256 58 Writing case notes 217 49 Client information management system 210 48 Privacy and confidentiality 162 37 Supervision training 161 37 Intro to the SHS program 153 35 Managing staff 141 32 Work health and safety 119 27

Respondents were also able to comment on the training they received, and indicate their priorities for future training. A number wrote favourably about their training. They commented that their organisation and management supported training, that they had access to a good amount of training and that the topics on offer were interesting and important. Many of them, while feeling they had plenty of training opportunities, would welcome more. For example,

It has been great, amazing, but obviously the more the better as the industry and community we work within is constantly changing. (Practitioner, Youth Service).

More of the comments related to limitations in the training options that staff could access. This related to the relevance of the training content, and challenges accessing the training because of location and workforce issues. One respondent had a suggestion which might help address some of these issues: an annual survey of training needs so that appropriate training could be held in appropriate locations.

Instead of just posting the training that is happening, take a survey annually for what people want to do so that it can be held in respective areas. (Practitioner, Youth Service)

A number of respondents said that there was usually plenty of training available, but that it did not always meet their needs. There were many specific suggestions for the kinds of training that would be beneficial. Most often, respondents sought training that was targeted at different levels of experience, from introductory courses for new staff to advanced training for others. As one respondent described it:


Training has been generalised and once off, when it should be a continuous part of professional development. (Practitioner, Generalist Service).

And several managerial staff said they would appreciate training in management. Several wished for training in related to working with clients, such as case management, working with clients, safe home-visiting, communication, trauma-informed practice, approaches to therapy, suicide intervention. A number of respondents from youth or generalist services wished they could access training specific to SHS, including how the housing system works; data management, the Client Information Management System (CIMS) and how to maximise the use of this data. Training in other policy and service issues was also mentioned, including child protection, Centrelink and the Job Network.

Other suggestions included training on how to work with specific client groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, CALD communities, youth, people with disability, LGBTIQA+ people, and people with issues regarding domestic violence, drugs, alcohol, mental health, gambling, hoarding or a combination of these.


7 Organisational environment In addition to exploring workforce characteristics and training issues, the survey also captured indicators of the organisational environment in relation to learning and development, including staff perceptions of the emphasis the workplace placed on training, and measures relating to supervision and satisfaction with it, and mobility and turnover.

7.1 Prioritising training To capture the extent to which workplaces were emphasising workforce development, respondents were asked if the agreed or disagreed with the statement “Staff training and development is a priority in my workplace”. Across all service specialisations, the majority of respondents agreed that it was a priority. Four out of five (81%) agreed with this statement (Figure 26). The level of agreement was slightly higher at 88 percent in youth services and slightly lower, 76 percent, in generalist services. Around 8% disagreed with the statement, and this figure was similar across all service types.

Figure 26 Agreement with the statement “Training is a priority in my workplace”, by specialisation

There was some variation by location. Higher proportions of staff in Illawarra Shoalhaven and Southern NSW (89%) and in South Western Sydney said their organisation prioritised training (Figure 27). A slightly lower proportion of participants agreed that training was a priority among those in Sydney, South Eastern and Northern Sydney (73%) and Murrumbidgee, Far West and Western NSW (75%). However more were neutral rather than reporting disagreement with the statement.

80%88%

76% 81%

12%5%

15% 11%

8% 7% 9% 8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Disagree

Neutral

Agree


Figure 27 Agreement with the statement “Training is a priority in my workplace”, by location

89 84 82 81 79 75 73

5 1110 15

1211 16

5 5 8 410 14 11

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

IllawarraShoalhaven andSouthern NSW

South WesternSydney

Mid North Coast andNorthern

Western Sydney andNepean Blue

Mountains

Hunter New Englandand Central Coast

Murrumbidgee, FarWest and Western

NSW

Sydney, SouthEastern and

Northern Sydney

Disagree

Neutral

Agree


7.2 Supervision The survey also explored indicators of staff experiences of supervision. Figure 28 shows that while 61% did not have supervisory responsibilities, 18% supervised up to 5 staff.

Figure 28 Staff with supervisory responsibilities, by number of staff supervised

Respondents were also asked if they received regular clinical, professional or practice supervision which is separate to their line management, and if so, how satisfied they were with various aspects of this supervision. This is shown in Figure 29. A little over half (53%) said they did receive clinical or professional supervision, although the proportion was higher among those focused on domestic violence.

As shown in Figure 30, only a very small minority said they were dissatisfied with aspects of their supervision, with the largest groups being moderately or very satisfied. Almost two thirds (63%) were very satisfied with the quality of support they received from their supervisor, more than half were very satisfied with the amount of time their supervisor spent with them, and almost half were satisfied with the frequency of supervision sessions.

61

1811 8 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

None 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 20 More than 20


Figure 29 Receipt of clinical or professional supervision, by service specialisation

Figure 30 Satisfaction with supervision

7.3 Mobility and turnover The largest group of respondents reported having held two positions in the last five years, and there was not substantial difference across specialisations (see Figure 31. Figure 32 shows that overwhelmingly, respondents hope to remain in their current role (72%), or in a different role in the same organisation (13%). Relatively few are planning to leave their organisation or the sector, and the 7% who reported ‘other’ included those intending to retire or to leave the workforce to undertake family responsibilities, or to undertake full time education.

4051 46 47

6049 54 53

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Domesticviolence

Youth Generalist

Does receiveseparatesupervision

Does not receiveseparatesupervision

8 6 8

17 15 12

2723

18

48 56 63

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Frequency of sessions Amount of time mysupervisor spends with

me

Quality of supportreceived

Very satisfied

Moderatelysatisfied

Neutral

Dissatisfied


Figure 31 How many positions respondents had held in the last five years

Figure 32 Where respondents hope to be working in 12 months

31 3524 29

42 4249 44

28 23 27 27

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Three or more

Two

One

72

13 2 57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

In my current role In a different role inthis organisation

In anotherhomelessness

service

Outside thehomelessness

sector

Other


8 Service leaders’ perspectives Staff who indicated they were CEOs or organisational managers or senior leaders in their service were asked some additional questions, to profile their service and their perceptions of workforce and training issues within their service. These additional questions were asked of leaders only as answering them required an overview of the organisation.

8.1 SHS and organisational income The vast majority (86%) of the 92 leaders who responded said their organisation provided other services, in addition to SHS. Leaders were also asked if SHS provided all the income for the service, or whether it was the primary income source or not. For 14% of respondents, SHS contributed all income (as their organisation did not provide other service types) and for a further 42%, it was the main income source (see Figure 33).

Figure 33 Contribution of SHS to organisational income

8.2 Client characteristics and need The survey asked whether client characteristics and needs had changed in the last few years. In each of the service specialisations, over 90% of leaders reported that the complexity of clients’ circumstances had increased. Correspondingly, a substantial proportion said the level of support needs had increased (84% overall), while 77% said poverty had increased. Among those focused on domestic violence, 83% said poverty had increased, compared with 74% of leaders in youth services.

14

4238

50

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

All income Main income Not main income Not sure


Figure 34 Proportion of leaders who said client needs, complexity and poverty have increased in the last few years

The survey then gave service leaders an opportunity to “make any other brief comments about changes in the client groups accessing your SHS service over the last few years.” Only 35 people took this option. Not surprisingly, there were differences between service types. However, consistent across all groups was an increase in the complexity of clients’ needs and an increase in the number of clients whose key housing issue was affordability, and a number mentioned limited options through which to exit clients from their service.

Clients are impacted by increase in living costs, with no increase in income and impacted by reduced affordable housing options. (Manager, Domestic Violence Service)

Due to lack of exit options, lack of affordable housing. (Manager, Generalist Service)

Increased family complexity. (Organisational leader, Generalist Service)

The complexity is increasing for young peole therefore the duration and type of support is increasing. (Manager, Youth Service)

A couple of respondents from youth and domestic violence services mentioned child protection issues:

We have … an increase in clients whose children have been removed prior to accessing the service or, at the time of accessing the service, they are at risk of losing their children. In fact the primary reason for the latter group entering the service is because child protection has told them if they don’t go to the refuge their children will be removed. (CEO, Domestic Violence Service)

8691

8380

91

74

8893

818491

77

0102030405060708090

100

Level of support needs Complexity of circumstances Poverty



Youth services and generalist services staff tended to mention mental health issues and young people experiencing violence. For example,

In the last 3 years, mental health has increased, poverty has increased as young people's families experience violence and DV. (Organisational leader, Youth Service)

There has been a significant increase in the number of clients with mental health issues as well as complexity of mental health. (Manager, Generalist Service)

A couple of respondents from generalist services noted an increase in the number of clients who did not have access to any income support because they are not citizens.

We are experiencing increased numbers of clients who are not Australian residents or citizens and on bridging visas with limited or no income. (Manager, Domestic Violence Service)

8.3 Workforce tiers in SHS services On average, managers reported that their service had 12.2 staff who were practitioners (Tier 1), and 2.2 staff members who were advanced practitioners (Tier 2), with lower numbers of managers and leaders. These are numbers of staff only, and do not reflect full-time equivalent. Median figures were lower, indicating that half of senior managers responding worked in services with less than 5 practitioners, and less than 1 staff member in each other tier.

Table 9 Average number of staff at each tier Mean Median Tier 1: Practitioner 12.2 5 Tier 2: Advanced practitioner 2.2 1

Tier 3: Manager / lead practitioner / service co-

2.1 1

Tier 4: Leadership / executive team 1.6 1

In addition, the majority of leaders reported that their service hosted students on placement in each. In most cases, services hosted less than 5 students, but some reported hosting many more (see Figure 35).


Figure 35 Number of students on placement usually hosted by the SHS each year

8.4 Managers’ training priorities Leaders were asked a series of questions about SHS relevant training in their organisation. This included a question about whether the organisation had itself developed or delivered any SHS-relevant training. Of the 92 leaders who answered, 38% said their organisations had not, indicating that they were completely reliant on external provision of SHS relevant training. Those which had developed SHS-relevant training had done so for in-house use only, although 5 respondents reported that they also offered that training outside their organisation.

The survey also asked for leaders’ perspectives on how many SHS staff in the organisation had undertaken FACS-funded training (see Figure 36). Three in 10 responded that all their SHS staff had done this. A further 35% said most, but not all, and 12% said around half of SHS staff. 7% said no SHS staff had undertaken FACS-funded training. This is shown in Figure 36.

As shown in Figure 37, a third of leaders said the amount of training received by SHS staff was nowhere near enough (32%), while around half (48%) said the amount of training was ‘almost enough’. A minority said the amount of training received was just the right amount.

Table 10 shows that among service leaders, very high proportions indicated it was a priority for SHS staff in their service to develop skills to work with people with mental health needs (88%), and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (85%). Lower proportions reported it was a priority to develop skills with men who are violent, people with issues of hoarding and squalor, or people with acquired brain injury, although there were still reasonably large proportions for whom these were priorities.

22%

30%

26%

14%

5% 2%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

None 1 or 2 2 to 5 6 to 10 More than 10 Not sure


Figure 36 Leaders’ reports of how many SHS staff had undertaken FACS-funded training

Figure 37 Leaders’ ratings of amount of training received by SHS staff

30

35

1214

72

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

All SHS staff Most but not all Around half Less than half None I'm not sure

Nowhere near enough, 32%

Almost enough, 48%

Just the right amount, 21%


Table 10 Proportion of leaders who said it was a priority for SHS staff to develop skills to work with each client group

Client group % who said skill it was a priority

People with mental health needs 88 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people 85 People vulnerable to drug and alcohol use 74 Victims of domestic and family violence 72 Children and families at risk (incl. child protection) 60 LGBTIQ+ people 54 Young people 50 People with other disabilities 44 People with acquired brain injury 35 People with issues of hoarding and squalor 34 Men who are violent 28

8.1 Management and leadership training Respondents who were CEOs or other managers or leaders, or who were advanced practitioners, were asked if they had ever undertaken management or leadership training. Of those who answered, 72% said they had undertaken this training. However, it was more common among very staff, and men. 80% of CEOs or other organisational executives had undertaken this training, while 76% of managers, supervisors or lead practitioners had done so, and 63% of advanced practitioners, which includes team leaders, practice managers and program co-ordinators. By gender, 80% of men reported receiving it compared with 72% of women.

The open-ended question, ‘Any comments on management or leadership training?’ provided those in senior positions with an opportunity to discuss these issues more detail. Many respondents said they had already undertaken leadership or management training or were in the process of doing so. The majority of respondents said leadership training would be beneficial for good quality management. For example:

I would love to have access to diploma in leadership and management. (Manager, Youth Service)

It should be a compulsory part of the role. (Manager, Youth Service)

While the majority of respondents were speaking on behalf of themselves as managers, a number of more junior staff saw the benefits of leadership or management training for their managers and co-workers:


There is a greater need for this type of training for both front line case managers and management. Case managers inadvertently become role models/important adult for traumatised youth. (Practitioner, Youth Service)

I feel more support for management on how to effectively lead a team would be beneficial (Practitioner, Youth Service)

A couple highlighted career progression as a benefit of management training:

This type of training would help case workers progress and become amazing managers. (Practitioner, Generalist Service)

8.2 Training of Board and Management Committee members

Questions were also asked about training and development issues among board and management committee members. While some respondents were unsure or said the question was not applicable, many reported finding it difficult to recruit members with appropriate skills either sometimes (43%) or usually (17%). While 38% said finding resources to provide governance training was sometimes or usually difficult, more than half (52%) reported that getting members to take up opportunities for governance training could be difficult. This is shown in Figure 38.


Figure 38 Leaders’ perspectives on training issues for Boards and Management Committees

21

3525

20

4326

2828

1712 24

27

1827 23 25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Recruit members with appropriateskills

Find resources to providegovernance training for Board or

Management Committee members

Get members to take upopportunities for governance

training

Recruit members with livedexperience

Not applicable / notsure

Usually difficult

Sometimes difficult

Not difficult


9 Conclusion The material in this report offers detailed insight into how workers and leaders in the Specialist Homelessness Sector perceive their work and training needs, and their priorities for learning and workforce development. Based on responses of 441 responses in late 2018, the report has underlined some key issues and priorities for sector development and workforce sustainability.

In particular, the data underlines that the SHS sector needs to plan to attract new workers and retain current staff and to ensure they are well equipped to work with people affected by homelessness, as 1 in 5 SHS workers are expected to reach retirement age in the next decade. At the same time that SHS needs to attract and retain staff, the work involved in delivering homelessness services is becoming more complex. Overwhelmingly, service leaders reported that clients in 2018 were presenting with more complex needs than in previous years, expanding the skills demanded of SHS workers.

SHS staff appear well positioned to respond to changing demands, being well qualified relative to the Australian workforce. However, only half reported that they feel ‘very well’ or ‘extremely well’ prepared to work with people affected by homelessness. Staff and managers place high priority on developing further capacity in relation to homelessness service delivery. Training and development specific to SHS is particularly important as around a quarter of staff are relatively new, having worked in the sector for less than two years. This highlights the importance of training and development to ensure ongoing sector capacity. As well as ensuring relevant content is promoted in formal qualifications, access to specific developmental opportunities tailored to SHS would assist services to build capacity.

The high priority that homelessness organisations are placing on training and development is a strength of the sector and the SHS training calendar is well received. However, one in three service leaders across the sector describe the amount of training their staff receive to be ‘nowhere near enough’. Barriers to taking up training opportunities include workloads, service disruptions, travel and costs.

Overall, the report provides detailed information about staff perspectives and needs. Ongoing monitoring of trends in the SHS workforce on an annual or biannual basis would provide additional information about the status of the workforce and needs, and could be used to assess the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at building capacity and ensuring all SHS clients receive high quality services.


Appendix A: Supplementary Tables

Table A. 1 Age profile by service specialisation


n % n % n % n % 24 or under 1 1% 6 3% 8 4% 12 3% 25 to 34 20 20% 59 29% 36 19% 111 25% 35 to 44 29 28% 55 27% 58 31% 125 28% 45 to 54 24 24% 53 26% 43 23% 108 24% 55 to 64 24 24% 25 12% 38 21% 76 17% 65 and over 4 4% 2 1% 2 1% 8 2% Missing 0 0% 1 0% 0 0% 1 0% All^ 102 100% 201 100% 185 100% 441 100% As 47 participants indicated their service had more than one focus, the total for all (441) is less than the sum of each category.

Table A. 2 Years in homelessness sector and in role by service focus (%)

Less than 1 year

1 to 2 years

2 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

11 to 20 years

More than 20 years

Missing All

Years in homelessness Sector Generalist (n=185) 11 18 27 21 15 7 2 100 Youth (n=201) 12 13 22 28 13 9 3 100 Domestic violence (n=102) 7 13 25 24 18 14 1 100 All (n=441) 11 15 26 23 14 10 2 100 Years in role Generalist (n=185) 16 24 34 15 2 1 9 100 Youth (n=201) 19 19 28 22 4 3 5 100 Domestic violence (n=102) 14 26 31 14 6 2 8 100 All (n=441) 17 23 32 16 3 2 7 100


Table A. 3 Ranking of highest priority areas for training by service specialisation

DV Youth Generalist Domestic and family violence

Trauma informed care and practice

Trauma informed care and practice

Trauma informed care and practice Child protection Housing pathways

Child protection Case management Domestic and family violence

Cultural competency Domestic and family violence Self care

Case management Housing pathways Cultural competency

Client engagement and consultation

Training and workforce development in Specialist ......Table 3 Approximate number of SHS staff in...

Documents

Transcript of Training and workforce development in Specialist ......Table 3 Approximate number of SHS staff in...