Search or view whole report

View PDF

Bringing legal and non-legal workers to assist homeless clients in legal processes

A key message of the 2003 Beyond the Divide national conference on homelessness was:

Collaboration and integration between stakeholders remains critical to the improvement of services to homeless people, and to bring about the policy and program integration required to prevent and address homelessness.¹³¹

Further, the summary report of the conference stated in support of this conclusion:

Research presented by Hanover Welfare Services captured the fundamental importance of working across and within service systems to address homelessness by producing powerful evidence to demonstrate that current separate responses to discrete aspects of disadvantage (e.g. income, housing, employment) produce poor outcomes for homeless people aged 18–35.¹³²

The data presented up to this point have demonstrated that legal and other issues homeless people face are often intertwined and not easily resolved by a single agency. As such, the current and other studies suggest that the issues may be best dealt with in a holistic manner, and that this is more feasible if agencies are working in coordination to support the clients. One worker commented:

So it’s having a central team or information services or something like that, where you’re connecting with, where all services are connecting with this, so there’s a better understanding of what’s happening.¹³³

This is consistent with Scott and Sage, who reported: “working with other agencies emerged as an important factor assisting participants to deliver services to clients with legal problems”.¹³⁴ However, coordination between agencies is not without its challenges, particularly with groups with multiple needs such as the homeless.¹³⁵

However, that said, several interagency projects and programs have had positive outcomes for homeless people.¹³⁶ In the current study, the following suggestions were provided to increase communication and coordination between legal and non-legal services.

Networking between legal and non-legal agencies

The problems [of homeless people] are not just legal—they’re massive. I think any legal clinic’s got to have the links into all of us [homeless person’s services] sitting round the table.¹³⁷

It was clear from caseworkers and agencies consulted in this project that networking between agencies, particularly at the local level, was highly valued.¹³⁸ Suggestions to improve coordination and cooperation between agencies included:

• more formalised communication mechanisms
• agencies working together on projects to address client needs
• establishing networks of homeless service providers in a local area
• shared training and development in legal issues/referrals.¹³⁹

Newcastle was one area visited as part of this project where homeless services had formed a network, namely, the Newcastle Hunter Homeless Interagency Network (NHHIN). The network includes accommodation services, welfare agencies, DOH offices, the tenancy service, Centrelink offices, Hunter Community Justice Centre, local councils and mental health and family and community services, among others and since 2004, the Hunter Community Legal Centre. The NHHIN is currently coordinated by the McKenzie Centre, run by Mission Australia.¹⁴⁰ The network has been developing a model that provides outreach to homeless clients and then coordinates service delivery to meet the diverse needs of those clients.¹⁴¹

At a broader level, the NSW government’s Better Service Delivery Program is another project that aims to improve communication and coordination and facilitate more effective referrals between human service agencies in this State. It includes an online directory of human services, as well as electronic systems and other mechanisms to facilitate and streamline referrals between agencies. The program involves both government and non-government agencies.¹⁴²

Networking and formal liaisons between agencies both at the local level and the State level may facilitate better coordination between legal and non-legal services. At the State level, it appears, however, that legal services in particular are not always included in networks with other human services. For instance, at this stage the BSDP does not appear to involve legal services (such as Legal Aid NSW, the local courts, Chamber Magistrates Service, LawAccess). Further, the Partnership against Homelessness, a partnership of state government agencies to address homelessness in NSW, does not include the Attorney General’s Department or its relevant sections (e.g. local courts, LawAccess).

Co-location and coordination of services

A key feature of the specialised homeless persons legal services described in Chapter 6 (e.g. LCRC, HPLS, Shopfront and the legal clinics at Lou’s Place and Exodus) is that they are located in or near generalist homeless or other welfare/community services. In addition, Legal Aid and some CLCs provide advice clinics at neighbourhood centres and other outreach locations. Chapter 6 argued that this co-location of legal and other support services improved accessibility to legal assistance for certain sectors of the homeless population. Thus, this model provides another means for improving the coordination of legal and non-legal service delivery.

The evaluation report of the VPILCH HPLC has described the relationship between their legal and the generalist services as follows:

The Clinic model relies on collaboration with a number of agencies that work with people affected by homelessness. The vast majority of initial contact by clients with the Clinic is on referral from the agencies, and the agencies host the lawyers at their premises. With variations, agency roles identified during the evaluation included:

• hosting the Clinic sessions at the agency;
• promoting the Clinic to possible clients;
• making appointments for clients;
• advising team leaders of client bookings prior to each Clinic session;
• supporting clients to interviews with lawyers, including in some cases, attending the interview with the client;
• follow up and liaison with the team leaders and lawyers on behalf of clients;
• providing feedback about the Clinic;
• participation in the systemic advocacy/law reform work of the Clinic;
• provision of training to Clinic lawyers; and
• participation in education and training opportunities provided by the Clinic.

The Clinic could not operate without the agencies.¹⁴³

According to that report, the non-legal agencies that hosted the VPILCH HPLC also considered it a sustainable arrangement and useful means by which they could be involved in law reform processes. They also appreciated the opportunity to facilitate direct contact between their clients and the lawyers. The development of trust and rapport between all parties concerned was also cited as an important benefit. Finally, the fact that the clinic was relatively self-sufficient (and thus not a drain on the agencies’ resources) was also cited as a crucial aspect to the success of the collaboration.¹⁴⁴ One limitation raised in the roundtable discussions of placing legal services in welfare services was the potential perception that the legal service may lack independence from the sponsoring welfare agency and concerns about confidentiality arising from this. One worker stated:

We have some wonderful NGOs that provide … legal services and they are fantastic, but a lot of the people that we work with tell us that they won’t access those because they are concerned that … if they go to a [NGO-based] legal service that somehow the [NGO] is going to find out about their legal issues and that may jeopardise their accommodation or their relationship with that service … we work fairly hard to say, well look, it’s staffed by independent solicitors from different services, who won’t report back, but it’s this big brother mentality that the guys have got, that they’re being tracked.¹⁴⁵

A perceived lack of independence may also be problematic if the client has a legal issue concerning the host agency. On this point, the evaluation report of the VPILCH HPLC also cautioned:

The team acknowledged that, even though they sought the prior permission of the client for the caseworker to sit in on the interviews, the client may not feel completely free to refuse, given that they are usually reliant on the Agency for accessing other services.¹⁴⁶

Thus, in summary, this ‘one-stop shop’ model of legal and non-legal services for homeless people addresses a number of the barriers they face in accessing legal and other support. It allows homeless people to access a range of services at one physical location and provides legal service that specifically caters for the complex needs of the client. Co-location also provides scope for a holistic approach to the client’s needs, where the legal and non-legal services can work together to address the client’s legal and other needs. The early experiences of the HPLSs in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane suggest that there may be real benefits to clients of this one-stop shop approach to supporting homeless clients.