‘No Wrong Door? A Social Network Analysis of area-based service links in the financial support sector’ Kathy Landvogt Good Shepherd Youth & Family Service BSL Seminar 12 Sept 2013 Thanks to BSL for invitation to speak Indigenous acknowledgement –Wurrundjeri I would like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on, the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, pay respects to their elders past and present. And acknowledge any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are at our meeting today, and express the hope of Good Shepherd that we are moving together to a place of justice and partnership. Good Shepherd mission – social justice – service and advocacy. Traditionally women and girls- still large focus eg NILS, FV.

Presentation overview Service integration and ‘no wrong door’ concepts The network research project: Service linkages in the financial support service sector Findings regarding key factors like geographic diversity, paid staffing, formal networks & co- location Increasing area-based service integration – building on strengths Reflections on using Social Network Analysis Whatever services we deliver, whatever sector we are in, it is important to know: How can we continue to deliver our services when needs are changing? what is our role as community-based services, and what is that of government? how can we do better, working together? Especially, how can we address causes not just symptoms – go beyond crisis to a holistic response that builds resilience for the people who come through the door? And increasingly, how can we do more with less??? Government interest in idea of ‘service integration’ and ‘no wrong door’ as a method of doing all these. FaHCSIA funded our ‘network research project’ to discover: How much is service integration happening in the ‘FMP’ sector? And how does it improve access and quality of services (or not?)

Service integration- 19th century style Service integration is not new. Service integration of interest in different systems at least since the late 1800’s! ‘Extreme service integration’? = institutions Eg Good Shepherd Abbotsford up to 70’s. Many needs met under one roof: food, housing, education, employment… With deinstitutionalisation, and its disaggregation of services - and therefore, most importantly, of power - came service silos, and the need for linking these has been clear ever since -> service integration happens at different levels – always involves links across services- including across services in different sectors, but also sometimes at agency-to-agency level, and sometimes system-wide such as IFVSS or Child First (GS involved in several such service systems). Already a lot of work in our services that goes beyond a crisis response to a single problem ‘symptom’ to holistically address multiple aspects of a problem and indeed its causes. However, we know we fail people too. What needs to be done to guarantee this for every person coming through the door, wherever they are? Service integration is a high priority in current policy in multiple government departments – seen as the cornerstone to improving services for the service users. Government has a role too, in throwing itself behind these efforts. More of this later…

Service Integration- 21st century style All forms of working together, linkage, collaboration, partnership focussed on service-user’s outcomes More important the more complex the need A closer look at What is service integration? Definition from Flatau et al: “all forms of working together, or service linkage, cooperation, collaboration, coordination and partnership” “first and foremost conceptualised by practitioners and policy makers as a network of coordinated services with an ultimate focus on individual client need and individual client outcomes” – the particular model or approach not important as long as it enabled front-line workers to do this. Especially where: complex and multiple issues outside scope of individual services are faced by service-user specialist services are lacking ‘wicked problems including some ‘solutions’ actually cause other problems funding is tight (– some efficiency goals in there).

Complex needs Most commonly reported issues of people seeking emergency relief: family/relationship breakdown mental illness chronic illness chronic debt disability legal issues (Flanagan 2009 in ‘Ending the Stopgap’ CISVic, 2011) Not only are our services becoming more specialised, making service integration a more complex task; our clients too are grappling with more complex problems and multiple issues. For example- Even in a comparatively simple service request like emergency relief, people are coming with more and more complex situations. From ‘Ending the Stopgap’ “Flanagan‟s (2009) survey of Tasmanian emergency relief listed the five most commonly reported issues: family/relationship breakdown, mental illness, chronic illness, chronic debt, disability and legal issues. Most respondents were affected by more than one issue, and the clustering of multiple issues tended to be in five rather than two or three. The experience of seeking help can too often add to the stress…

Disempowering experience What makes it harder: Telling story multiple times Don’t know where the help they need is Navigating complex systems is too hard – especially in crisis What makes a positive difference: A good worker to open doors Privacy, consent and transparency when services share information ‘Better client outcomes’ is the goal – so start with what service users say in general about accessing services: Not telling story multiple times Don’t know where the help they need is Navigating complex systems too hard – esp in crisis When you find a good worker to open doors it makes all the difference But also needs to be consensual and transparent – privacy is important So the question becomes: What is the shortest journey between 2 services – how many ‘legs’, or referrals, are needed to get where you need to be for the right help?

‘No wrong door’ From…. To….. Single holistic assessment Cross-sector case practice Area-based planning Relationships central There are multiple possible service doors and many dead-ends for the service-user. Linked with idea of service integration is ‘No Wrong Door’ or ‘The first door is the right door’ (origin? ‘The road home’ Homelessness white paper- FAHCSIA) “there will be multiple entry points and any entry point will be a helpful on. A person can be assessed and receive assistance and support, without having to negotiate complex pathways through multiple systems” Elements of ‘no wrong door’ may include: single holistic assessment facilitated referrals cross sector case practice – case reviews area-based integrated service planning & collaboration ensuring the relationship is central – strongest version of that is ‘one client, one worker’ These are all dependent on some degree of service integration – for example, at the simplest end of the spectrum, strong referral networks and protocols.

A service integration continuum Information sharing and communication Cooperation and coordination Collaboration Consolidation Integration So what are we talking about when we discuss SI in any given context? There are different SI design options. Range of models: Range of intensities: continuum such as Konrad’s Information sharing, cooperation, collaboration, consolidation, integration System level, service level or client level ‘Top down’ or ‘bottom up’ I am not an expert on full range of service integration literature but what I have read clearly indicates that: Need to match the level of relationship, commitment and interaction to the purpose, not ‘one size fits all’ (Keast et al) Often not at resource-intensive end Must occur where existing local mechanisms, relationships and networks are built High expectations of service integration – higher than able to be realised at present Konrad’s Integration Typology (Konrad [1996] cited Flatau et al 2010, 11)

Service integration- a caution An ‘umbrella concept’ meaning different things to different people Needs more exploration and clarity But the concept of service integration still needs development and clarification despite common usage. Why the Rorschach inkblot test? a metaphor for lack of conceptual clarity a caution against accepting that ‘service integration’ is self-evident must necessarily be of one specific even that it is in itself a ‘good’ policy or practice – thinking back to the total institutions of yesteryear, it needs to be considered alongside, for example, our professional power. Service integration is also “resource intensive and time-consuming and can result in less organisational flexibility and loss of organisational identity” especially for more structured approaches.. “Organisational mechanisms need to be in place to support service providers in their pursuit of service integration” inc esp privacy considerations ‘Umbrella concept’ (Keast et al) means different things to different people, lack of definitional specificity Much acclaimed but little understood -> Reason to study what place-based capacity for service integration exists, and how can it be improved/influenced? Need to understand benefits and costs.. Need to match purpose to SI design.

The Financial Management Program network research project: ‘WHY?’ Research Questions 1. How are local service links currently configured? 2. How can local service links maximise wellbeing? 3. What assists financial support services to be well-linked with each other and other services? So time to turn to the piece of research we conducted to explore how service integration happens in ER, FC, MF and FE services, and also Centrelink SWs. The goal/purposes for the research: FaHCSIA- service integration between FMP services; GSYFS – ditto, plus advocacy about organisational needs to deliver service integration The research questions developed to operationalise these goals 1. How are local service links between ER, FC, MF and FE currently configured? 2. How can these local service links maximise service-users’ wellbeing? 3. What assists financial support services to be well-linked with each other and other services?

‘WHERE?’: The case study areas Four case study areas Inner urban Yarra area Western Sydney Blacktown area Outer urban Rural/regional Cairns area Thursday Island area Remote Another hunch = variation between geographic areas? (It’s a big, diverse country – Federal government job to reach all of it) case study areas to capture diversity (not to compare quantitatively - cannot ‘test’ any theories about effect of geography on service links with a sample of one in each area) Also to look for common variables and features across geographic diversity

‘WHAT?’: Service types and links studied Emergency relief Financial counselling Microfinance Financial education Centrelink social work LINKS Referrals Secondary consultations Co-locations Partnerships Formal network memberships X What we investigated: 1. SERVICE TYPES 4 FMP plus Centrelink SW - based on previous Good Shepherd research 2. SERVICE LINKS the variables we think might be important to linking services in this sector Referrals and secondary consultations important to holistic support response- client-focused; Co-location , partnerships and formal network membership – organisationally focussed and may assist referral networks in various ways Note we did not measure intensity of these – could do, or drill in more detail eg referral protocols not just referrals

The ‘HOW’: Network analysis methodology Sample = all identified FMP agencies in area most informed person serves as ‘proxy’ for service Data-gathering tool = 3-part phone questionnaire agency details e.g. staffing links e.g. referrals views about local networks Data Analysis network analysis – UCINET software sociograms/maps case studies and themes consultations with participants re initial results MAPPING SERVICE LINKS VISUALLY Tried to have complete sample within each area - snowball sampling helped – but services not all linked in so difficult Selecting sample; person = program Survey by phone (better response and data) Qualitative and quantitative – SNA visual also Participant consultations to check conclusions – could be used more Why best methodology: treats links as a system (as service integration promotes) Area-based quantifies the previously intuitive knowledge (and surprises sometimes), visual cf verbal or numerical – accessibility of findings

The sociograms or network maps Yarra area 14 surveyed services 110+ linked services 283 total links This shows all links named in the Yarra area (where we are today). Remembering this is just from a relatively small and contained sector- financial support services. FINDING - First finding- networks are very large. Points immediately to a finding that total integration does not equal effective integration. Fully linked up services are an impossibility and impractical. Networks can be smarter than that as we will see… NOTE: for those not familiar with these types of Sociograms or maps - Explain nodes, links, numbers, software places most linked centrally Also this is another reason why social network analysis useful: Large networks to portray; diverse areas and networks – show differences

W. Sydney - The largest area in population For comparison…but do not assume this represents a denser network..

A note of caution about the network analysis method also: Can use information for local collaborative planning but privacy and sensitivity need to be considered A snapshot in time only, dependent on the information given There is no right or wrong pattern of connection so useful to stimulate dialogue not draw firm conclusions Tells the story - combining quantitative, visual and qualitative data BUT….

Cross-sector links Yarra pendants removed – 13 surveyed plus only 23 others in common (cf 110). Also type of service colour-coded: green=ER, red=fin couns, orange= microfin, yellow =fined, purple=Centrelink. What is the story here? Cluster of non financial support services in the CENTRE of map: FSS less linked with each other than with these other sectors – which makes sense if recall needs of service-users and that most links are referrals and secondary consultations Other sectors are vital to financial support (common referrals or secondary consultations). A common pattern across the case study areas: At the centre of all the financial support services maps are a similar set of non-financial support services: they are more central than any single financial support service. (That means that an ER or FC or MF service is more likely to refer to one of these than to each other.) The common central services for this area-based service network are: Housing Community health and mental health Community legal Alcohol & drug Family violence FINDING- These are the services that all integrated systems for financially disadvantaged people need to include. Another point to draw from this: Here is ample evidence of cross-sector collaboration at the worker (and perhaps service) level in the financial support services sector. NOTE – some less linked by virtue of program logic, eg fin ed not linked with crisis services as specifically not suitable as a crisis response. Also fin ed is a nascent, embryonic sector.

Variation between service types Number of services Total links Ave links per service Emergency Relief 29 586 20.2 Financial Counselling 11 296 26.9 Microfinance 15 331 22.1 Centrelink 6 263 43.8 TOTAL 61 1476 Ave overall 28.2 Service types, like local areas, also have own requirements and diversity Emergency relief: lower number of links overall. Reasons? Smaller agencies? Volunteer base? One-off, crisis nature of service? Look at staffing using this methodology later

Number of services mapped Case study area Services surveyed Linked services Total links Square kms (approx) Total pop’n Yarra 14 110 283 20 78,000 W Sydney/ Blacktown 22 235 585 360 450,000 Cairns area 28 189 610 10,600 200,000 Thursday Island 3 69 491 5,000 Now look at the other case study areas to understand the DIVERSITY of the service links, a vital point in designing more service integration. It cannot be one size fits all. Summary of all the case study areas: from 3-28 services participating in each area, from 28 to 235 linked services, from 69 to 610 actual links identified. Number of services that one sector deals with = exponentially large Eg Yarra – one of the smaller ones- 14 agencies produced 283 different links with 110 different services. And this is definitely under-reported as asked for up to 8 referring orgs only, and would have missed a few services operating in isolation, or in a separate sector (eg Indigenous) Important to be aware of size of sector when discussing service integration and some conclusions later. Some services are volunteer run ER, or one-person financial counselling programs, or microfinance (NILS) programs tacked onto other services, or only part of what one person does in their role. It would be interesting to know if this size of sector is comparable to other sectors. Note that the area with most agencies not the one with most links: shows already that some areas more ‘connected’. But does not show why. Sq kms and population a thumbnail sketch of the geographic diversity – the most connected area is also geographically the largest. The most services are in the area serving the biggest population. Cannot compare in terms of good/bad; use to explore differences. So NEED context for analysis/interpretation of network maps = qualitative data, case studies FINDING – diversity between areas accommodated in any consideration of service integration

Diversity across different areas Some more exploration of effects of distance (there are historical as well as geographic factors) Thursday Island: collaboration to overcome disadvantages of being isolated Cairns, all links: Clusters due to population distribution- Clusters connected by key ‘bridges’ - not fully linked, strategically linked to ensure coverage Denser links in this Cairns area than Yarra, or anywhere else. Yarra- about 20 links for 13 services surveyed – less than one link with another FSS service for every service surveyed Cairns – about 60 links for 28 services surveyed – more than 2 for every surveyed service What happened in Cairns area to create these denser networks? CD project worker – 2 yrs – to build up NILs services and networks, and because the approach was community development and service integration, also built up ER networks Implications? Need local integration solutions to accommodate diversity: - assess local capacity inc strengths and limitations; tailor design drawing from local existing linkages and knowledge (Evans) - Keep an open mind eg “in rural areas there as an impression that because ‘everyone knows everyone’ linking in order to gain access to resources to assist clients was easier. However, suggested several reports, this was not necessarily the case” (Baulderstone) FINDING - Must be ‘fit for purpose’ depending on local context – history, geography, culture, service mix, resources (Keast et al) Cairns and region

Reciprocal ties – Cairns area referrals and secondary consultations To reinforce the point, look at ‘reciprocal ties’ in Cairns (referrals and secondary cons only) Reciprocal ties – relates to trust and depth of inter-agency relationships: shows where services have named each other ‘Reciprocal ties’ are often less present than would expect. Shared understanding cannot be taken for granted - differing perspectives and interests between services even within same sector, and very probably always across sectors How can more reciprocal relationships develop? Time and effort required to build and sustain relationships – and shared understanding of roles, protocols – inc through formal network meetings. Bualderstone: “previous history of working together enables established trust to be built on” but this goodwill can be lost if just worker-worker. Also is time-consuming. Difficult to replace but needs to be structural preferably (even if not system-wide)- such as MOU’s and protocols to institutionalise relationships at service level (vertical integration) Much higher number of reciprocal ties in Cairns

Reciprocal ties – Western Sydney referrals and secondary consultations By comparison, with more services than Cairns, Western Sydney has fewer reciprocal ties in referrals and secondary consultations

Reciprocal ties – Yarra referrals and secondary consultations FINDING?? Community development? Distance? Formal networks?

Correlation of formal networks with client-focussed links Formal network membership is strongly correlated with number of links (except for financial counselling services) We correlated formal network membership with other links. Could treat formal network membership, co-location and partnerships as an attribute (yes/no) as well as map it as a type of link. Found that more referral/secondary consultation connections occurs when there are more formal network connections. Formal networks correlated with number of links except FC (but need to explore ‘why’ qualitatively) One of the most interesting findings from my point of view because relates to directly resourcing service integration at less intensive end. (recall Konrad’s continuum) The association is consistent with the finding of other studies of service integration that best SI effect comes from tight clusters of horizontal worker-level service links loosely connected to each other via connectors such as formal networks -> ‘the strength of weak ties’ may be as important a function of formal networks as bonding between like-services? Return to this concept or explain here? FINDING- Formal networks and informal referral networks are mutually reinforcing = Backed by qualitative data. (Are they mutually supportive or does one lead to other? Still a question but probably not easily answered at this stage.)

Formal networks across areas Yarra The maps of formal network links Area case studies show enormous variation in local network membership The number of formal network links, not surprisingly, depended on whether relevant local networks were present. EG Yarra- NO local ER network OR overall welfare network (possible reasons…) Also other factors evident when compare with other areas: level at which network operated – worker or service (or system) Presence or absence of strategic investment and planning for formal networks No common network memberships

Western Sydney Compare to Western Sydney/Blacktown: Very strong links (black nodes show all the surveyed services) – large grouping is around Blacktown and smaller ones are in outlying areas (w Sydney covers large area and not easy to travel around) The Blacktown grouping is around the inter-agency (cross-sector) welfare network – attended by managers mainly Example of ‘Vertical’ integration, service level links May assist local worker level links if internal agency (vertical) communication allows this network to be used by worker level to make wider circle of connections = ‘Strength of weak ties’ example? weak ties enable reaching populations and audiences that are not accessible via strong ties clumps of social structure will form, being bound predominately by "strong ties", and "weak ties" function as the crucial bridge between any two densely knit clumps of networks individuals (agencies) with few bridging weak ties will be deprived of information from distant parts of the network and will be confined to the provincial news and views of their close contacts A large sector-wide local network attended largely by managers

Cairns area Local ER network and local microfinance network Compare to Cairns area formal network memberships An ideal? Worker-level connections through sector-specific local formal networks -= ‘horizontal’ service links =service integration at low intensity level eg collaborating re facilitated referrals Facilitated by the 2yr position of CD worker to develop NILS in area; also linked with ER (results clear in reciprocal ties map) Provides high degree of practitioner-level ‘horizontal’ service integration: participants give examples of collaboration through resource sharing not just information sharing Provides some integration with other sectors also – eg guest speakers from other networks FINDING – (combining maps and correlation data) Formal networks can deliver ‘no wrong door’ where more intensive service integration is not present or an option in a sector (due to low resourcing for example) But formal networks cannot be assumed to be present without strategic planning and resourcing. Local ER network and local microfinance network

Type of staffing – paid/volunteer Can also use this method to look at correlations between the number of links and the type of staffing. Staffing – paid or volunteer, a factor in number of links; confirms anecdotal evidence ER the most varied and largest of FMP service types Highest percentage of ‘volunteer only’ staffing within ER sector Dominant staffing model in ER in all areas is the ‘paid-volunteer mix’ In ER a lot of variation across areas from 50% volunteer only in Yarra to 12% volunteer only services in Cairns area (not shown)

Correlation of staffing type with client-focussed links Correlated number of links with staffing type: Centrelink and financial counselling not relevant because never have volunteers, and financial education sample too small Careful not to misinterpret re vols Shows that a ‘mix of paid and volunteer’ staffing and ‘paid staff only’ have higher number of links than ‘volunteer only’ in both ER and microfinance Volunteers build social capital in other ways not measured here FINDING - how to increase ER agencies’ capacity to make more service links. One answer is provide access to paid staff.

Partnerships What else can increase service links? Partnerships? Co-location? Further correlations done for these. Partnerships. Like staffing, was counted amongst the links to be mapped, but it can also be treated as an attribute – (is service partnered? yes or no). First, what is frequency of partnerships? ER low in partnerships – though this finding less robust because of lack of clarity/knowledge about what ‘partnership’ is eg microfinance

Correlation of partnerships with client-focussed links ER– more links if in partnership, but not a strong predictor

Correlation of co-location with client-focussed links No consistent statistical correlation Qualitative case study data shows co-location can be helpful to network links Co-location. This finding on colocation has produced a fair bit of interest. First, Co-location was the dominant organisational model in FMP’s (not shown here). Microfinance and financial education programs were always co-located with other services; financial counselling was co-located 80 percent of the time, and ER 60 percent of the time. Second, calculating the average number of links for co-located versus not co-located services shows the association between co-location and client-focussed links (graph) – ER is less often co-located than other types; when it is co-located, client-focussed links are 30 per cent higher. This may be due to intervening variables such as agency size. No statistical correlation overall; there may be a correlation, but not strong enough in this data to show statistically, needs to be carefully looked at (as opposed to e.g. “Colocation is valuable in ways that are hard to overestimate” – a common view but based on what?) (Microfinance is always co-located due to the service model and so no analysis is possible) Financial counselling does not show any indication of increased links associated with co-location; however the qualitative analysis indicates that co-location may be significant to networks if the colocation is based on an explicit, active model of collaboration Financial education, although a very small sample size, is usually co-located, which is consistent with the recruitment challenges of financial education programs Co-location does not increase links for Centrelink: co-located services are generally specialist) Case studies show: Co-location helpful if actively promotes cross-referral structures and processes ensure information sharing e.g. Neighbourhood Justice Centre, Collingwood FINDING- Co-location is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for strong service links in this service sector. The service design needs to incorporate co-location to be effective. Needs additional investment. And may therefore not be most cost-efficient, at least not if requires major investment.

Effective service integration of financial support services Regional/State level formal networks The most effective service integration at the worker level : Is largely horizontal, bottom-up more than top-down Draws upon formal and informal networks and strong trusting relationships Has ‘clusters’ of closer relationships that are linked loosely to each other through ‘connectors’ Has some vertical links such as regional networks or peak bodies - useful as connectors Needs to be bespoke - ‘fitted to purpose’ and built on existing local links A few further reflections : Network relationships are built from the bottom up on relationships of trust = horizontal integration, at level of worker/client. Do not have to be FULLY connected (every service to every other service) to be functionally integrated – need combination of horizontal and vertical links Formal networks help provide some of these vertical ‘connectors’ Worker level is arguably where it most matters to clients. Local practitioner-level formal networks

A program for action? Better client outcomes through service integration Document existing service integration Build on current area-based infrastructure and relationship strengths Develop local ER sector referral protocols Develop local cross-sector case-planning processes Develop local formalised systems of referral and other client-focussed collaboration Receive government-funding, with public accountability, for service networking and collaboration What the research says should be a program for action NOW in the financial support sector: Document service links and what is achieved – case studies plus some basic numbers (no need to use SNA) Currently area-based => build on this strength Currently low intensity: networking =>Move to medium intensity: referral protocols, cross sector case planning Currently dependent on individual/agency effort Move to formalised systems Currently unfunded, dependent on goodwill => Move to funded function with public accountability

Research recommendations: Service integration in financial support sector ‘Fit for purpose’ - based on the CD approach, local strengths, history, geography and contexts Build localised clusters with looser vertical connections to link them with other services and non-FMP sectors Recognise investment of time and development of greater knowledge and flexibility at workforce and organisational levels required (including in volunteer organisations)

BUT service integration: Does not replace resources Requires staff and agency flexibility Is not easy or cheap AND “Integrative symbolism can distort the complexity of the challenge and without adequate funding, resources, and commitment can be a futile endeavour and potentially counter-productive” (Keast et al 2011, FAHCSIA p.38) Some cautionary comments to end: Service integration should not be regarded as a ‘cheap option’ It must not substitute for the substantive resources (eg housing resources cf ‘Front Door’ intake and referral system) It is so attractive to policy-makers as an ‘idea’, a symbol, that there is a danger of it being taken up as a panacea without enough knowledge or reflection.

Why we used social network analysis Respond to policy and practice context Best methodology for the research questions Quantify what is usually qualitative Explore correlations between network links and service attributes Represent complexity effectively: tell the story Learn! Build capacity as a research org Contribute to wider conversation about service delivery systems by trying this way of studying and mapping them eg are larger weaker networks more useful than smaller stronger ones? etc And a conversation about research methods? A methodological question = do the benefits of connectivity established between individuals eg ‘Connected’, apply to organisations? Seems likely but needs to be established and studied: Ie program logic/design requires info about and relationships with people in other services

Challenges using network analysis in the community sector Sampling locating all relevant services interviewing the best person to be service ‘proxy’ Analysis Understanding software Need research expertise eg university advisory Interpretation Over-simplifying findings – use reference group Dissemination Confidentiality and reputation or participants Misinterpretation due to visual accessibility

Benefits of using network analysis Rationale: Quantifies anecdotal knowledge Allows correlations to be made Combines qualitative and quantitative data Visually engaging and reasonably accessible PLUS Information both we and participants can use Studying ourselves not clients ‘Studying up’ potential Return to rationale for choice as methodology: Respond to policy and practice context Best methodology for the research questions Quantify what is usually qualitative Explore correlations between network links and service attributes Represent complexity effectively: tell the story Learn!

“The truth is there are no silver bullets, only struggle moving forward for a just and better way. I often feel we are hampered by those who propose cure-alls and are better served by those willing to wrestle complexity” (Joe Finn CEO Mass Housing Support Alliance quoted in Cripps, Parity Oct 2012) A final researcher’s word. k.landvogt@goodshepvic.org.au