16	Housing
Governments play a significant role in the Australian housing market, directly through housing assistance and indirectly through policies associated with land planning and taxation. The Australian, State and Territory governments share responsibility for housing assistance. Direct assistance includes public and community housing, home purchase and home ownership assistance, Indigenous housing, State and Territory rental assistance (such as State and Territory provided bond loans, guarantees and assistance with rent payments and advance rent payments, relocation expenses and other one‑off grants) and Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA).
This chapter focuses on the performance of governments in providing public, Indigenous and community housing under the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA) (box 16.1) and CRA. Close links exist between the housing services covered in this chapter and other government programs and support services discussed elsewhere in the Report, such as:
•	the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), which provides accommodation and other services for homeless people or those at imminent risk of becoming homeless (see chapter 15)
•	services delivered by the Australian, State and Territory governments and community organisations to promote independent living, including services for people with a disability (see chapter 13), mental health services (see chapter 11) and aged care services, such as the Home and Community Care program (see chapter 12).

Box 16.1	Commonwealth State Housing Agreement 	
The CSHA is an agreement made between the Australian, State and Territory governments under the Housing Assistance Act 1996 (Cwlth) to provide strategic direction and funding certainty for the provision of housing assistance. The aim of this agreement is to provide appropriate, affordable and secure housing assistance for those who most need it, for the duration of their need.	
(Continued on next page)	

Box 16.1	(Continued) 	
The 2003 CSHA came into effect on 1 July 2003 and will run until 30 June 2008, and includes bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and each State and Territory government and an overarching multilateral agreement. There are generally separate bilateral agreements for mainstream and Indigenous housing in each jurisdiction. Bilateral agreements are intended to provide greater flexibility for states and territories to respond to their particular housing needs.
A national ten year strategy to improve Indigenous housing, Building a Better Future, was agreed in 2001 by Australian, State and Territory ministers. State Indigenous Bilateral Agreements are the primary vehicle for implementing the national Building a Better Future strategy. The desired strategy outcomes are better housing and housing services, more housing, improved partnerships, greater effectiveness and efficiency, and improved performance linked to accountability and coordination of services.
Funding arrangements
The majority of funding under the 2003 CSHA is provided by the Australian Government, taking the form of general assistance funding (public housing, home purchase assistance and private rental assistance) and specified funding for identified programs: the Aboriginal Rental Housing Program (ARHP), the Crisis Accommodation Program (CAP) and the Community Housing Program. The majority of CSHA funding is distributed to State and Territory governments on a modified per person basis, with the State and Territory governments contributing additional funding from their own resources to ‘match’ (in part) Australian Government funding allocations.
Roles and responsibilities
Under the CSHA, the Australian Government has responsibility for:
•	ensuring the outcomes pursued through the agreement are consistent with broader national objectives, particularly in relation to support for individuals and communities
•	advising State and Territory governments of Australian Government objectives to be achieved under the agreement
•	reporting to the Commonwealth Parliament on performance against agreed outcomes and targets of housing assistance provided under the agreement.
State and Territory governments have responsibility for:
•	developing housing assistance strategies that are consistent with Australian, State and Territory government objectives and that best meet the circumstances of the State or Territory
•	developing, implementing and managing services and programs to deliver agreed outcomes
•	reporting on a basis that enables performance assessment by the Australian, State or Territory governments, based on agreed performance indicators.	
Source: CSHA (2003); Report on Government Services 2007 (2007 Report), box 16.1, p. 16.2. 	
	
	This chapter does not cover some Indigenous housing and infrastructure assistance provided by Australian, State and Territory governments, land councils and Indigenous community organisations.
Indigenous data in the housing chapter
The housing chapter in the 2007 Report contains the following data items on Indigenous people:
•	regional and remote area concentration of State owned and managed Indigenous housing (SOMIH), 2005-06
•	low income and special needs households, as a proportion of all new SOMIH tenants, 2001-02 to 2005-06
•	greatest need allocations as a proportion of all new SOMIH allocations  and proportions of greatest need households waiting for less than three months to more than two years, 2005-06 
•	direct cost of providing assistance per dwelling of SOMIH, 
2001-02 to 2005‑06
•	occupancy rates of SOMIH, 30 June 2002 to 30 June 2006
•	average turnaround time of SOMIH, 2005-06
•	rent collected as a proportion of the total rent charged for SOMIH, 2005-06
•	proportion of tenants rating their current home as meeting their location and amenity needs, 2005
•	proportion of customers satisfied or very satisfied with SOMIH (per cent), 2005
•	SOMIH subsidy per tenant and proportion of SOMIH households spending less than 30 per cent of their income in rent, 2006
•	proportion of SOMIH households with overcrowding at 30 June 2006
•	income units receiving CRA, by income unit type, 2006
•	income units receiving CRA, by geographic location, 2006 
•	proportion of income units receiving CRA paying more than 30 per cent of income on rent, with and without CRA, 2006.
Supporting tables
Supporting tables for data within the housing chapter of this compendium are contained in attachment 16A of the compendium. These tables are identified in references throughout this chapter by an ‘A’ suffix (for example, table 16A.3 is table 3 in the housing attachment). As the data are directly sourced from the 2007 Report, the compendium also notes where the original table, figure or text in the 2007 Report can be found. For example, where the compendium refers to ‘2007 Report, p. 16.15’ this is page 15 of chapter 16 of the 2007 Report, and ‘2007 Report, table 16A.2’ is attachment table 2 of attachment 16A of the 2007 Report.
Profile of housing and housing assistance
Service overview
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2001 Census of Population and Housing (ABS 2002) identified just under 7.1 million households in Australia, where ‘household’ is classified as a person living alone or as a group of related or unrelated people who usually reside and eat together. The composition of Australian households is changing. There is an increasing number of smaller households, including a rising number of single person households. The average Australian household size fell from 3.3 people to 2.6 people between 1971 and 2001, while the proportion of single person households increased from 18.1 per cent to 22.9 per cent over this period (ABS 2002).
The average Indigenous household is larger than the average non‑Indigenous household. In 2001, the average non‑Indigenous Australian household size was 2.6 people, whereas the average household with at least one Indigenous person was 3.5 people (ABS and AIHW 2005). 
Roles and responsibilities
Each level of government has different roles and responsibilities in housing and housing assistance:
•	The Australian Government provides CRA and shares responsibility with State and Territory governments for housing assistance provided under the CSHA (box 16.1). The Australian Government also influences the housing market through other direct and indirect means, including taxation and home purchase assistance.
•	State and Territory governments provide housing assistance under the CSHA, such as assistance for the homeless, public housing, community housing, Indigenous rental housing, private rental assistance and home purchase assistance. Some also contribute to the delivery of housing assistance through mechanisms such as home lending programs and joint ventures with the private sector. State and Territory governments are also responsible for land taxes, stamp duties and residential tenancy legislation.
•	Local governments implement planning regulations and are sometimes involved in providing community housing.
Funding
The Australian, State and Territory governments provided $1.3 billion (contributing 72.2 per cent and 27.8 per cent respectively) for housing programs under the CSHA in 2005-06 (FaCSIA 2006). Public and community housing accounted for the majority of CSHA funding in 2005-06. The Australian Government also provided $2.1 billion for CRA in 2005-06. 
Figure 16.1 illustrates the range of government assistance to renters. 
Figure 16.1	Recipients of rental assistance across rental sector, 2006
	
a Additional dwellings are funded under programs other than CSHA; however, data about these dwellings are not available. b For year ending 30 June 2005. c At 30 June 2006. d Includes permanent dwellings managed by funded or unfunded Indigenous community housing organisations. 18 927 of these dwellings were managed by organisations administered by the State governments and 1993 were managed by organisations administered by the Australian Government.
Source: AIHW (2007b); 2007 Report, figure 16.2, p. 16.7.
CSHA funding data for 2004-05 and 2005-06 financial years are presented in table 16.1.
Table 16.1	CSHA funding, 2004-05 and 2005-06 ($ million)a
Funding arrangements	2004-05	2005-06	
Base funding grants	733.8	743.9	
Aboriginal Rental Housing Program	102.1	93.3	
Crisis Accommodation Program	40.1	40.7	
Community Housing Program	64.7	65.6	
State matching grants	359.2	364.1	
Total	1 299.9	1 307.6	
a Includes Public Housing, Home Purchase Assistance and Private Rental Assistance Programs. 
Source: FaCSIA (2006); FaCSIA (unpublished); 2007 Report, table 16.2, p. 16.8.
Size and scope
Housing assistance is provided in various forms, and models for delivering assistance can vary within and across jurisdictions. The main forms of assistance are outlined in box 16.2. This chapter focuses on four forms of assistance: public housing, SOMIH, community housing, and CRA. 

Box 16.2	Forms of housing assistance	
There are several main forms of housing assistance.
•	Public housing: dwellings owned (or leased) and managed by State and Territory housing authorities to provide affordable rental accommodation. The CSHA is the main source of funding for public housing along with internally generated rental revenues and the proceeds of asset sales.
•	Community housing: rental housing provided for low to moderate income or special needs households, managed by community‑based organisations that are at least partly subsidised by government. Community housing models vary across jurisdictions, and the housing stock may be owned by a variety of groups including government.
•	Indigenous housing: State owned housing targeted at Indigenous households (referred to as ‘SOMIH’ in this report) and houses owned or leased and managed by Indigenous community housing organisations and community councils in major cities, regional and remote areas.	
(Continued on next page) 	
	
	Box 16.2	(Continued)	
•	Crisis accommodation: accommodation services to help people who are homeless or in crisis. Services are generally provided by non‑government organisations and many are linked to support services funded through SAAP. Sources of government funding include CAP through the CSHA, which provides funding for accommodation, and SAAP funding for live‑in staff, counselling and other support services.
•	Home purchase assistance: assistance provided by State and Territory governments to low income households to help with home purchases or mortgage repayments does not fall within the CSHA, nor does the grant provided under the First Home Owner’s Scheme, a Commonwealth initiative administered by State and Territory governments.
•	Private rental assistance: assistance funded by State and Territory governments to low income households experiencing difficulty in securing or maintaining private rental accommodation. This assistance may include ongoing or one‑off payments to help households meet rent payments, one‑off payments for relocation costs, guarantees or loans to cover the cost of bonds, and housing assistance advice and information services. Assistance may be provided by community‑based organisations funded by government.
•	The chapter also reports on CRA, which is a non‑taxable income support supplement paid by the Australian Government to income support recipients or people who receive more than the base rate of the Family Tax Benefit Part A and who rent in the private rental market.	
Source: CSHA (2003); FaCS (2003); 2007 Report, box 16.2, pp. 16.8-9.	
	
A snapshot presenting different forms of CSHA housing assistance for vulnerable people is presented through the example for Victoria (figure 16.2).
Figure 16.2	Forms of CSHA housing assistance for low income Victorians
	
Source: VDHS (2001, p. 4); 2007 Report, figure 16.3, p. 16.9. 
Indigenous housing
Government funded Indigenous housing includes both State managed and community managed housing. The State managed component is generally funded by ARHP and may be supplemented by untied CSHA funds and State matching funds. Community managed Indigenous housing may be financed from ARHP funds, supplementary State funds, untied CSHA funds, and funds from other sources. Details of mixed composition, non‑rebated and other households excluded from data for SOMIH are presented in table 16A.26. 
State Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing
SOMIH dwellings are defined as those rental housing dwellings owned and managed by government and allocated only to Indigenous Australians (AIHW 2006d). They include dwellings managed by government Indigenous housing agencies for allocation to Indigenous tenants. There were 12 893 dwellings identified in the 2005-06 SOMIH collection (table 16A.2).
SOMIH is only one of a number of programs designed to provide housing assistance to Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians are eligible for assistance under Indigenous community managed housing (where community agencies carry out tenancy management functions), the mainstream public and community housing programs, CRA and other government housing programs (both Indigenous‑specific and mainstream).
The ACT and the NT are not included in the SOMIH data collection. The ACT does not receive funding for, or administer, any Territory owned and managed Indigenous housing programs; in the NT, ARHP funding is directed to community managed Indigenous housing. All Indigenous housing programs in the NT are community managed and administered, and specific management issues (such as eligibility and waiting lists) are the responsibility of Indigenous housing organisations that manage permanent dwellings for people in discrete Indigenous communities. The approaches of these organisations may differ significantly, depending on the size of the organisations, the socioeconomic circumstances of particular communities, and cultural considerations. Allocation of funds for the construction, major upgrade and renovation of dwellings in communities are based on highest need, determined by an objective needs measurement model. Housing management and maintenance funds are allocated to Indigenous Community Housing Organisations based on the quantum of their responsibilities. The NT government cannot differentiate between the various funding sources, given its commitment under the CSHA and the Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Agreement to ‘pool’ most funds earmarked for Indigenous housing and associated infrastructure in the NT.
In NSW, a separate statutory organisation — the Aboriginal Housing Office — is responsible for planning, administering and expanding policies, programs and the asset base for Aboriginal housing in that State. Funding for the office comes from the CSHA and the State Government (in addition to its CSHA commitments).
Some other jurisdictions are increasingly pooling funding but currently report SOMIH data separately. Queensland administers a separate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Housing Program, which includes ARHP funds, untied CSHA funds and State funds, and does not report separately against the ARHP component of the program funds (which forms more than one third of total funding).
Indigenous community housing
There has been considerable progress in the development of national Indigenous community housing data over the last few years. In 2005 the AIHW published Indigenous housing indicators 2003-04, the first indicator based report on the National Reporting Framework for Indigenous housing (NRF). The report includes administrative data on Indigenous community housing provided by the jurisdictions, as well as data from other sources such as the ABS Census and the 2001 Community Housing and Infrastructure Needs Survey (CHINS). This is a biennial report with the 2005-06 report to be released in mid 2007.
The AIHW report Indigenous housing needs 2005: a multi-measure needs model was released in October 2005. The report presents data from the five endorsed dimensions of housing need — homelessness, overcrowding, affordability, dwelling condition and connection to essential services. The report examines the extent of need by tenure type and assesses differences between Indigenous and non‑Indigenous households. 
In October 2005 Housing Ministers agreed to a reform strategy for Indigenous community housing that included the need to collect dwelling and organisation level data, including data on dwelling condition, in order to monitor improvements in the sector. The development of national organisation and dwelling level data will be the focus of data development activities over the next few years.
The most recent national Indigenous community housing data show that at 30 June 2006 there were 613 Indigenous community housing organisations in Australia. Indigenous community housing organisations managed a total of 20 920 permanent dwellings (table 16A.14). 
The average weekly rent collected for Indigenous community housing in 2005-06 was $54 per dwelling (table 16A.17) and the rent collection rate was 94.0 per cent (AIHW 2007a). At 30 June 2006 the national occupancy rate for Indigenous community housing permanent was 90.4 per cent (table 16A.15). 
Data from the 2001 CHINS provide information on dwelling condition and maintenance expenditure. Seventy percent of dwellings managed by Indigenous community housing organisations were in need of minor or no repair, 18.9 per cent were in need of major repair and 8.4 per cent were in need of replacement (table 16A.16). In 2001 the average annual maintenance expenditure per dwelling was $1870 (table 16A.17).
CRA
Data on the number and proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA by income unit type are presented in tables 16A.18 and 16A.19, respectively.
Diversity of State and Territory housing assistance operations
State and Territory governments have similar broad objectives for providing housing assistance. Individual jurisdictions, however, emphasise different objectives depending on their historical precedents and ways of interacting with community sector providers. Jurisdictions also face differing private housing markets. These differences lead to a variety of policy responses and associated assistance products. It is important to be aware of all the housing assistance operations in each State and Territory when analysing performance information. 
Appendix A contains information on each State and Territory that may help in interpreting the performance indicators presented in this chapter. State and Territory governments have provided the following additional information on the key operating parameters characterising housing assistance provision in their jurisdictions.
State Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing
Eligibility criteria for access to SOMIH are generally consistent with those for public housing once an applicant has been confirmed as Indigenous (see 2007 Report, tables 16.6 and 16.3). The management of waiting lists varies across jurisdictions — for example, a number of jurisdictions use the same list for both public housing and SOMIH. Terms of tenure are the same as those for public housing for a number of jurisdictions. 
The proportions of SOMIH located by ASGC remoteness areas are shown in table 16.2.
Table 16.2	SOMIH — regional and remote area concentrations, 2005-06 (per cent)a
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
Major cities	41.1	38.3	13.1	28.6	60.7	–	34.0	
Inner regional	32.1	37.0	14.9	7.9	7.7	82.2	22.2	
Outer regional	20.1	24.3	44.6	22.0	17.8	17.8	26.0	
Remote	5.2	0.4	10.3	20.1	6.0	–	8.5	
Very remote	1.5	–	17.1	21.4	7.8	–	9.3	
a Further information to the data included in this table and/or its interpretation is provided in table 16A.2. 
– Nil or rounded to zero.
Source: AIHW (2006a); table 16A.2; 2007 Report, table 16.7, p. 16.21.

Table 16.3	SOMIH housing policy context, 2006a
	NSWb	Vicc	Qld	WAd	SAe	Tasf	
Eligibility 	
	Income limit per week ($)g	395	356	609	430	638	411	
	‘Other’ asset limits ($)g	None	30 000	None	36 400 in cash	270 500	34 473	
	Minimum age 	18	15	None	18	None	16	
Waiting list	
	Details	Combined with public housing	Combined with public housing	Combined with public housing	Combined with public housing	Need (Four segment)	Priority, similar to public housing	
Tenure	
	Probationary period	None	None	None	None	6 months	3–6 months	
	Fixed term	3, 6 or 18 months	5 years	None	3 months	None	1–3 years	
	Ongoing	Yes	Lifetime after age 65	Yes	Ongoing	Ongoing after probation	Dependant on housing history	
	Tenancy review	Prior to the end of the tenancy	To commence in 2008	Review at 6 months and 4 or 10 years	Annual	None	Fixed term leases reviewed at end of each term	
a At 30 June. b Interest accrued from cash assets is assessed as income less the first $5000 of each person’s savings. Applicants under the age of 18 years must demonstrate living skills to be eligible for housing. New tenancies from 1 July 2005 were signed to 18-month interim tenancies. From 5 December 2005 new thresholds and rules determine whether a tenant is eligible for a rent subsidy and the percentage of income they will pay as rent. Their household’s gross assessable income, household size and age of household members are used when assessing the household’s eligibility for a rent subsidy. For rebated rents, varied conssessional rates are applicable to certain age groups and some pensioners. For households whose tenancy commenced on or after 5 December 2005, the Family Tax Benefits Part A and Part B received are assessed at 15 per cent. Where the tenancy commenced prior to 5 December 2005 the Family Tax Benefits Part A and Part B received was assessed at 12 per cent from 5 December 2005, with an increase of 1 per cent every six months until the assessment rate reaches 15 per cent. CRA is assessed at 100 per cent. c Tenancies in Victoria are ongoing tenancies (not fixed term) that are subject to review after 5 years. For households that require major disability modifications, discretion may be applied to extend the asset limit to $60 000. Indigenous households generally access long term accommodation through the General Rental program or housing managed by the Aboriginal Housing Board of Victoria. d The income limit for those in north west remote areas is $550 per week. Those aged over 60 years are subject to a cash asset limit of $80 000. e The same definition as the Centrelink asset test threshold for a single person who does not own their own home is used. Most households pay a rent‑to‑income ratio of 25 per cent of assessable income in rent and households receiving less than the single Newstart Allowance (for whom the ratio is 19.5 per cent). f For people aged over 55 years the asset limit is $35 000. Applications outside the guidelines may be considered where there are extenuating circumstances in relation to income, asset and age criteria. g Limits are for a single person.
Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished); 2007 Report, table 16.6, p. 16.20.

Framework of performance indicators
Previous reports presented separate performance indicator frameworks for public, SOMIH and community housing. Increasing convergence between the frameworks over time means that, for this Report, public, SOMIH and community housing adopt a common performance indicator framework. (CSHA funded community housing is presented in a separate framework (see 2007 Report, figure 16.5) because of data comparability issues. No performance indicator data are currently reported for Indigenous community housing.)
These performance indicator frameworks are consistent with the general performance indicator framework agreed by the Steering Committee (see chapter 1). They also draw on the framework developed for the 1999 CSHA and reflect the national objectives of that agreement (and of the new CSHA that took effect in 2003) (box 16.3). The new CSHA places greater emphasis on Australian, State and Territory governments improving housing outcomes for Indigenous people, and governments have committed to improving access to mainstream housing options for Indigenous people living in urban and regional areas. This is the third year that data are reported under the new agreement. Work is being undertaken on the performance indicators to improve the quality and scope of national performance information. A separate performance indicator framework is adopted for reporting on CRA (figure 16.4).

Box 16.3	Objectives for public and community housing under the 2003 CSHA 	
The principles guiding the 2003 CSHA are to: 
1.	maintain a core Social Housing sector to assist people unable to access alternative suitable housing options
2.	develop and deliver affordable, appropriate, flexible and diverse housing assistance responses that provide people with choice and are tailored to their needs, local conditions and opportunities
3.	provide assistance in a manner that is non‑discriminatory and has regard to consumer rights and responsibilities, including consumer participation
4.	commit to improving housing outcomes for Indigenous people in urban, regional and remote areas, through specific initiatives that strengthen the Indigenous housing sector and the responsiveness and appropriateness of the full range of mainstream housing options
5.	ensure housing assistance links effectively with other programs and provides better support for people with complex needs, and has a role in preventing homelessness
6.	promote innovative approaches to leverage additional resources into Social Housing, through community, private sector and other partnerships
7.	ensure that housing assistance supports access to employment and promotes social and economic participation
8.	establish greater consistency between housing assistance provision and outcomes, and other social and economic objectives of government, such as welfare reform, urban regeneration, and community capacity‑building
9.	undertake efficient and cost‑effective management which provides best value to governments
10.		adopt a cooperative partnership approach between levels of government towards creating a sustainable and more certain future for housing assistance
11.		promote a national, strategic, integrated and long term vision for affordable housing in Australia through a comprehensive approach by all levels of government.	
Source: CSHA (2003, p. 4); 2007 Report, box 16.4, p. 16.23.	
	
	Data for Indigenous people are reported for a number of SOMIH performance indicators in the 2007 Report (figure 16.3). The performance indicator framework shows which data are comparable in the 2007 Report. 
Figure 16.3	Performance indicators for public housing and SOMIH
	
Source: 2007 Report, figure 16.4, p. 16.24. 
The performance indicators for CRA differ from those for public housing and SOMIH because CRA has different objectives and delivery methods. Data for Indigenous people are reported for a subset of the performance indicators for CRA in the 2007 Report. It is important to interpret these data in the context of the broader performance indicator framework outlined in figure 16.4. The performance indicator framework for CRA shows which data are comparable in the 2007 Report. For data that are not considered directly comparable, the text includes relevant caveats and supporting commentary. 
Figure 16.4	Performance indicators for CRA
	
Source: 2007 Report, figure 16.6, p. 16.26. 
Performance reporting for SOMIH
Some descriptive data on SOMIH are included in table 16A.2. As outlined earlier, the ACT and the NT are not included in the SOMIH data collection. 
Outputs
Equity — low income
The first equity indicator reported for SOMIH is ‘low income’ (box 16.4).

Box 16.4	Equity — low income	
‘Low income’ is an output indicator of the CSHA guiding principles, measuring low income need status of all households receiving assistance. The ‘low income’ performance indicator measures the number of new low income households as a proportion of all new households. Two measures of low income performance indicator are reported:
•	the proportion of new households with low income A — households where all members receive an income equivalent to or below 100 per cent of the government income support benefits at the pensioner rate (pension rates have been selected for calculating this indicator because they are higher than allowance rates)
•	the proportion of new households with low income B — households with an income above 100 per cent of the government income support benefits at the pensioner rate, but below the effective cut‑off for receiving any government support benefits.
High values for these measures indicate a high degree of access for low income households.	
	
	The proportion of new tenancies allocated to low income A households for SOMIH in 2005-06 is presented in table 16.4. The proportion of new tenancies allocated to low income B households is reported in the attachment (table 16A.3).
Table 16.4	SOMIH — low income A households, as a proportion of all new households (per cent)a
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
New low income A households as proportion of all new households	
2001-02	89.6	88.1	83.1	81.3	87.3	95.5	85.8	
2002-03	91.5	87.8	89.7	89.1	86.5	87.2	89.2	
2003-04	94.4	90.5	83.3	93.5	89.2	89.5	90.6	
2004-05	94.2	87.7	76.1	92.9	86.0	86.0	88.0	
2005-06	95.9	88.2	89.2	88.6	86.5	93.3	90.4	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and over time and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.3. 
Source: AIHW (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a); table 16A.3; 2007 Report, table 16.10, p. 16.28.
The proportion of low income households to all new households was similar for public housing and SOMIH. There were only slight variations across jurisdictions.
Equity — special needs
The second equity indicator reported for SOMIH is ‘special needs’ (box 16.5).
Box 16.5	Equity — special needs 	
‘Special needs’ is an output indicator of the CSHA guiding principles, measuring special needs status of all households receiving assistance. The ‘special needs’ performance indicator presents the proportion of new tenancies allocated to households with special needs. 
A high value for this measure indicates a high degree of access for special needs households.	
	
The proportion of new tenancies allocated to special needs households for SOMIH is presented in table 16.5.
Table 16.5	SOMIH — new tenancies allocated to households with special needs (per cent)a
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
2001-02	35.8	31.7	38.3	25.2	70.5	44.9	35.2	
2002-03	35.8	49.7	41.0	37.4	37.8	50.6	39.5	
2003-04	44.6	44.2	46.3	40.8	39.5	60.3	43.6	
2004-05	51.5	45.4	45.2	49.2	42.1	66.7	48.1	
2005-06	48.8	42.8	46.8	53.2	45.3	62.3	48.8	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and over time and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.4.
Source: AIHW (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a); table 16A.4; 2007 Report, table 16.12, p. 16.29.
The proportion of new tenancies allocated to households with special needs steadily increases over time for SOMIH at the national level while there were fluctuations within the jurisdictions.
Equity — priority access to those in greatest need
The final equity indicator reported for SOMIH is ‘priority access to those in greatest need’ (box 16.6). Differences in State and Territory housing assessment policies can influence comparability for this indicator.

Box 16.6	Priority access to those in greatest need	
‘Priority access to those in greatest need’ is an output indicator of the CSHA guiding principles to provide appropriate, affordable and secure housing to assist people who are unable to access suitable housing. This indicator provides information on whether allocation processes are such that those in greatest need have first access to housing. It measures the proportion of new allocations to those in greatest need. Greatest need households are defined as low income households that at the time of allocation are homeless, in housing inappropriate to their needs, or in housing that is adversely affecting their health or placing their life and safety at risk, or that have very high rental housing costs.
Reported data reflect the proportions of greatest need allocation overall and greatest need households waiting for less than three months to more than two years. As time to allocation reflects greatest need allocations as a proportion of all allocations for the time period, these numbers are not cumulative. A high value for this indicator, particularly for short time frames, represents a high degree of access of those in greatest need without these people waiting long periods of time.	
	
	The proportion of new allocations to those in greatest need for 2005-06 for SOMIH is presented in table 16.6. 
Table 16.6	SOMIH — proportion of new allocations to those in greatest need, 2005-06 (per cent)a
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
Total for year ending 30 June	8.2	23.9	11.9	28.4	79.4	na	26.3	
Proportion of greatest need allocations to new allocations, by time to allocation	
	<3 months	17.5	28.6	22.6	37.9	71.7	na	36.8	
	3–<6 months	11.9	35.7	40.0	72.5	100.0	na	41.7	
	6 months–<1 year	1.6	27.3	14.8	23.7	85.7	na	25.1	
	1–<2 years	5.2	31.3	4.8	–	88.6	na	20.7	
	2+ years 	–	–	3.3	–	72.2	na	5.5	
a Further information pertinent to the data included in this table and/or its interpretation is provided in table 16A.5. na Not available. – Nil or rounded to zero.
Source: AIHW (2006a); table 16A.5; 2007 Report, table 16.14, p. 16.31.
Efficiency — direct cost per unit
The efficiency indicator identified for SOMIH is ‘direct cost per unit’ (box 16.7).

Box 16.7	Direct cost per unit	
‘Direct cost per unit’ has been identified as an output indicator of the CSHA guiding principle to undertake efficient and cost‑effective management. It measures the cost of providing assistance per dwelling. ‘Direct cost per unit’ can be defined as the total administration costs and the costs of maintaining the operation of dwellings. 
Holding other factors equal, a lower direct cost per unit suggests an improvement in efficiency.
Due to a high level of capital expenditure in housing, gross and net cost per unit are predominantly driven by the user cost of capital (box 16.8). Caution must therefore be used when interpreting the indicator because the user cost of capital and service delivery models differ across the jurisdictions. The cost per dwelling indicators also do not provide any information on the quality of service provided (for example, the standard of dwellings).	
	
	The costs incurred by jurisdictions in providing SOMIH include:
•	administration costs (the cost of the administration offices of the property manager and tenancy manager)
•	operating costs (the costs of maintaining the operation of the dwelling, including repairs and maintenance, rates, the costs of disposals, market rent paid and interest expenses)
•	depreciation costs
•	the user cost of capital (the cost of the funds tied up in the capital used to provide public housing and SOMIH). Box 16.8 provides a discussion of the user cost of capital.
In 2001, the Steering Committee completed a research project to assess the impact of asset measurement factors (such as depreciation and asset valuation methods) on the comparability of cost data in the Report. The results of this study are summarised in chapter 2. Box 16.9 summarises the results relating to housing.
Treatment of assets by housing agencies for each jurisdiction is presented in table 16A.23.

Box 16.8	The user cost of capital	
The ‘user cost of capital’ for government services is the cost of having funds tied up in the capital used to deliver services (for example, houses and land in public housing). It makes explicit the opportunity cost of using the funds to deliver services rather than investing them elsewhere or using them to retire debt. It is calculated by applying a jurisdictional cost of capital rate to the value of government assets (see chapter 2 for details of the determination of a cost of capital rate). The costs of capital for land and other assets are shown separately, to allow users to consider any differences in land values across jurisdictions when assessing the results. Land values make up a large part of the user cost of capital and are largely beyond the control of jurisdictions.
When comparing costs of government services, it is important to account for the user cost of capital because it is often:
•	a significant component of the cost of services
•	treated inconsistently (that is, included in the costs of services delivered by many non‑government service providers, but effectively costed at zero for most budget sector agencies).
The Steering Committee accepts that asset valuation data are imperfect. It also considers that non‑recognition of the cost of capital used by departments to deliver services can result in a significant underestimation of costs for those services for which government capital is a major input. While the measurement of capital costs in this Report is not perfect, using an imputed costing is preferable to not costing government capital at all. The rate used for the user cost of capital is based on a weighted average of rates nominated by jurisdictions (currently 8 per cent).	

Box 16.9	Asset measurement in the costing of government services	
Costs associated with non‑current physical assets (such as depreciation and the user cost of capital) are potentially important components of the total costs of many services delivered by government agencies. Differences in the techniques for measuring non‑current physical assets (such as valuation methods) may reduce the comparability of cost estimates across jurisdictions. In response to concerns regarding data comparability, the Steering Committee initiated the study, Asset Measurement in the Costing of Government Services (SCRCSSP 2001). The aim of the study was to examine the extent to which differences in asset measurement techniques applied by participating agencies affect the comparability of reported unit costs.
The relative capital intensity associated with the provision of public housing increases the potential for differences in asset measurement techniques to have a material impact on total unit costs. The results of this study suggest, however, that the adoption under the CSHA of a uniform accounting framework has largely avoided this impact. The results are discussed in more detail in chapter 2.	
Source: SCRCSSP (2001); 2007 Report, box 16.11, p. 16.33.	
	
	The direct cost per dwelling for SOMIH is presented in table 16.7. Rent received from tenants has not been deducted. 
As with other indicators, it is not appropriate to compare the direct cost of providing assistance per dwelling for public housing (see 2007 Report, table 16.15) with the direct cost of providing assistance per dwelling for SOMIH, because there is greater scope for economies of scale in administration costs with public housing, which is a much larger program overall. 
SOMIH dwellings are also slightly more concentrated in regional and remote areas where the cost of providing housing assistance is potentially greater. The need to construct culturally appropriate housing (possibly requiring a higher standard of amenities) may also affect the cost per dwelling. Finally, different cost structures may apply to the programs. Construction of dwellings, for example, under SOMIH may involve a skills development element to allow for training of apprentices in regional areas.
Table 16.7	SOMIH — direct cost of providing assistance per dwellinga
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
2001-02	9 192	4 963	5 654	4 800	4 540	2 958	6 297	
2002-03	5 056	4 682	6 028	5 397	7 917	3 686	5 690	
2003-04	5 684	4 737	6 296	6 059	5 469	3 425	5 702	
2004-05	5 057	4 794	6 134	6 857	4 116	4 886	5 451	
2005-06	5 364	6 208	6 582	7 589	6 931	5 551	6 354	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and over time and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.6.
Source: AIHW (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a); table 16A.6; 2007 Report, table 16.16, p. 16.35.
Efficiency — occupancy rate
The second efficiency indicator reported for SOMIH is the ‘occupancy rate’ (box 16.10). 

Box 16.10	Occupancy rate	
The ‘occupancy rate’ is an output indicator of the efficiency of housing utilisation. It represents the proportion of dwellings occupied. The term ‘occupied dwelling’ refers to dwellings occupied by tenants who have a tenancy agreement with the relevant housing authority. A high value for this indicator suggests higher efficiency of housing utilisation. Occupancy is influenced by both turnover and housing supply and demand.	
	
	The proportion of total SOMIH stock occupied at 30 June 2006 is presented in table 16.8.
Table 16.8	SOMIH — occupancy rates (per cent)a
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
2002	97.9	96.6	94.6	95.2	91.2	92.7	95.4	
2003	97.6	96.1	94.2	94.4	91.8	95.8	95.2	
2004	98.0	96.7	96.8	94.1	92.2	98.2	96.0	
2005	97.4	95.8	96.1	94.2	91.8	97.7	95.5	
2006	97.4	96.7	96.8	94.1	93.5	98.3	96.1	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and over time and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.7. 
Source: AIHW (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a); table 16A.7; 2007 Report, table 16.18, p. 16.36.
Efficiency — turnaround time
The third efficiency indicator reported for SOMIH is ‘turnaround time’ (box 16.11).

Box 16.11	Turnaround time	
‘Turnaround time’ is an output indicator of the average time taken for occupancy of available dwelling stock to rent through normal processes. A low turnaround time suggests efficient housing allocation. 
‘Normal’ vacancies exclude properties that are offline or are undergoing major redevelopment and where there is no suitable applicant but include hard‑to‑let properties as this relates to tenancy management.
This indicator may be affected by changes in maintenance programs and stock allocation processes, and some jurisdictions may have difficulty excluding stock upgrades. Cultural factors may also influence the national average turnaround time for SOMIH dwellings relative to public housing dwellings. Following the death of a significant person, for example, a dwelling may need to be vacant for a longer period of time (Morel and Ross 1993). A higher proportion of SOMIH dwellings in regional and remote areas may also contribute to delays in completing administrative tasks and maintenance before dwellings can be re‑tenanted.	
	
	The average number of days for vacant stock to remain unallocated in 2005-06 is presented in figure 16.5. 

Figure 16.5	SOMIH — average turnaround time, 2005-06a 
	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.8.
Source: AIHW (2006a); table 16A.8; 2007 Report, figure 16.8, p. 16.37.
Efficiency — rent collection rate
The final efficiency indicator reported for SOMIH is ‘rent collection rate’ (box 16.12).

Box 16.12	Rent collection rate	
‘Rent collection rate’ is an output indicator of the CSHA guiding principle to undertake efficient and cost‑effective management. It is the total rent actually collected as a proportion of the total rent charged. A high proportion suggests efficiency in collecting rent. All jurisdictions aim to maximise the rent collected as a proportion of the rent charged.
Differences in recognition policies, write‑off practices, the treatment of disputed amounts, and the treatment of payment arrangements may affect the comparability of this indicator’s reported results. Further, payment arrangements for rent in some jurisdictions mean that rent collected over a 12 month period may be higher than rent charged over that period.	
	
	Rent collected as a proportion of the total rent charged in 2005-06 is presented in table 16.9. 
Table 16.9	SOMIH — total rent collected as a proportion of total rent charged (per cent)a
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
2001-02	99.9	98.8	97.3	103.0	92.6	99.1	98.5	
2002-03	102.3	98.1	97.2	101.9	107.9	98.8	101.4	
2003-04	104.1	99.8	101.3	103.1	97.0	102.2	101.8	
2004-05	97.7	100.6	100.4	103.9	93.8	99.6	99.2	
2005-06	100.5	99.0	99.7	104.3	94.7	103.8	100.0	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and over time and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.9.
Source: AIHW (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a); table 16A.9; 2007 Report, table 16.20, p. 16.38.
Outcomes
Location/amenity
‘Location/amenity’ is an outcome indicator of success in meeting tenants’ needs (box 16.13).

Box 16.13	Location/amenity	
‘Location/amenity’ is an outcome indicator of the CSHA guiding principles to provide housing assistance that is appropriate to the needs of different households. The location/amenity indicator is a survey‑based measure of the proportion of tenants rating location and amenity aspects as important and as meeting their needs. A higher level of satisfaction with location and amenity implies the provision of housing assistance more appropriate to household need.	
	
	During 2004-05, all states participated in the first National Housing Survey of SOMIH. As for the National Social Housing Survey undertaken biennially for public and community housing, the survey seeks to determine tenants’ level of satisfaction with various parameters of service and gauge housing outcomes. 
SOMIH tenants were asked whether particular aspects of the location and amenity of their dwellings were important to them and, if so, whether they felt their needs were met. The methodology for the survey was face to face interviews with a clustered sample of tenants. This report includes results at both State and national levels. 
Nationally, 86.5 per cent of tenants for whom location was important felt that their needs were met, and of those tenants for whom amenity was important 74.0 per cent felt that their needs were met (figure 16.6). Caution should be taken when comparing the SOMIH survey results with the public housing survey results, due to the different demographic profile of Indigenous customers and the different survey methodology issued that is a mail-out survey for the public housing survey and interviews for SOMIH survey. These differences may affect the results.
Figure 16.6	SOMIH — proportion of tenants rating their current home as meeting their location and amenity needs, 2005a
	
a Further information pertinent to the data included in this table and/or its interpretation is provided in table 16A.10.
Source: AIHW (2006a); table 16A.10; 2007 Report, figure 16.10, p. 16.41.
Customer satisfaction
‘Customer satisfaction’ is an outcome indicator (box 16.14).

Box 16.14	Customer satisfaction	
‘Customer satisfaction’ is an outcome indicator because one aim of the CSHA is to provide housing assistance that is appropriate for different households. Customer satisfaction is a survey measure of satisfaction with the overall service provided by the State or Territory housing authority. A higher percentage for customer satisfaction may imply better housing assistance provision.	
	
	Results for SOMIH are taken from the 2005 National Social Housing Survey of SOMIH. Nationally 63 per cent of respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the overall service provided by their State housing authority (figure 16.7).
Figure 16.7	SOMIH — customer satisfaction, 2005a
	
a Further information pertinent to the data included in this table and/or its interpretation is provided in table 16A.10.
Source: AIHW (2006a); table 16A.10; 2007 Report, figure 16.12, p. 16.42.
Affordability
‘Affordability’ is an outcome indicator of ability to access suitable housing (box 16.15).

Box 16.15	Affordability	
‘Affordability’ is an outcome indicator that aims to measure housing affordability for CSHA housing tenants. Two measures are reported:
•	a subsidy per tenant derived by dividing the total rebated amount by the total number of households
•	the proportion of rebated households spending less than 30 per cent of their income in rent.
High subsidy per tenant and high proportion of households spending less than 30 per cent of their income in rent imply better affordability. 	
	
	The subsidy per tenant and the proportion of rebated households spending less than 30 per cent of their income in rent for SOMIH at 30 June 2006 is presented in table 16.10. Information on the amount of income paid in rent by SOMIH tenants as a proportion of income can be found in table 16A.24.
Table 16.10	SOMIH — subsidy per tenant and proportion of households spending less than 30 per cent of their income in renta
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	Total	
Subsidy per tenant ($)	
2006	89.7	87.9	84.3	69.3	72.2	74.0	81.8	
Proportion of rebated households spending 30 per cent or less of their income in rent	
2006	100.0	99.6	100.0	99.5	99.1	97.0	99.2	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.11. 
Source: AIHW (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006a); table 16A.11; 2007 Report, table 16.22, p. 16.44.
Match of dwelling to household size
‘Match of dwelling to household size’ is an outcome indicator (box 16.16).

Box 16.16	Match of dwelling to household size	
‘Match of dwelling to household size’ is an outcome indicator of the CSHA guiding principles is to provide housing assistance that is appropriate to the needs of different households, such as household size. It measures the proportion of households where dwelling size is not appropriate due to overcrowding. The indicator uses a proxy occupancy standard based on the size of the dwelling and household structure (see table below). Overcrowding is deemed to have occurred where two or more additional bedrooms are required to satisfy the proxy occupancy standard. 
The proxy occupancy standard was revised to remove the four bedroom cap. The revised occupancy measure has been applied for the first time in the 2007 Report. Data from previous years can not be compared.
Proxy occupancy standard for appropriate sized dwelling, by household structure	
Household structure	Bedrooms required	
Single adult only	1 bedroom	
Single adult (group)	1 bedroom (per adult)	
Couple with no children	2 bedrooms	
Sole parent or couple with one child	2 bedrooms	
Sole parent or couple with two or three children	3 bedrooms 	
Sole parent or couple with four children	4 bedrooms 	
Sole parent or couple with more than four children	equal to number of children 	
Source: AIHW (2006c).		
A low proportion indicates a low proportion of overcrowded households.	
	
	The proportion of households with overcrowding for SOMIH is illustrated in figure 16.8. Information on moderate overcrowding and underutilisation for SOMIH can be found in table 16A.25.
Figure 16.8	SOMIH — proportion of households with overcrowding at 30 June, 2006a, b
	
a Data may not be comparable between jurisdictions and making comparisons between them could be misleading. Reasons for this are provided in table 16A.12. b The proxy occupancy standard was revised to remove the four bedroom cap for the 2006 data. Data from previous years cannot be compared.
Source: AIHW (2006b); table 16A.12; 2007 Report, figure 16.14, p. 16.46.

Performance reporting for Commonwealth Rent Assistance
Data for CRA recipients are only for individuals and families paid CRA by Centerlink under the Social Security Act 1991 or family assistance law. It includes amounts paid under the Social Security Act with payments now administered by the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) and DEST. It does not include equivalent payments made by the Department of Veterans Affairs, or payments made with Abstudy on behalf of DEST.
Data are generally for those entitled to CRA at 3 March 2006. Centerlink recorded 941 306 individuals and families as being entitled to CRA with a social security or family assistance payment for that day. Other published figures may include individuals and families who were paid CRA in the previous fortnight, some of whom were only entitled to payment for an earlier period (table 16.11).
Important eligibility requirements for CRA (which is paid automatically once eligibility has been established) are (1) the receipt of an income support payment or more than the base rate of the Family Tax Benefit Part A, and (2) liability to pay rent.
Outputs
Equity — access — income unit type
The first access indicator is ‘income unit type’ (box 16.17).

Box 16.17	Income unit type	
Access to CRA by ‘income unit type’ is an output indicator of the objective of CRA to provide financial assistance in an equitable manner. This indicator measures the number and proportion of eligible income support recipients receiving CRA by income unit type. The level of access experienced by different income unit types across States and Territories is influenced by a number of factors, including (but not restricted to) the size of their respective base populations and the levels of home ownership. CRA is a demand driven payment that has no benchmark in terms of the mix of customers. This indicator provides descriptive information only.	
	
	Of the 941 306 income units receiving CRA at 3 March 2006, 30 168 (approximately 3.2 per cent) self‑identified as Indigenous. Single people with no children represented approximately 51.5 per cent of income units receiving CRA and 37.5 per cent of Indigenous income units receiving CRA (table 16.11). The figures for the total number and proportion of income units by the income unit type disaggregated at the jurisdiction level are presented in 2007 Report, tables 16A.42, and 16A.43 and in 16A.18 and 16A.19.
Table 16.11	Income units receiving CRA, by income unit type, 2006a

Type of income unit	

Income units	
Proportion of CRA recipients	
Indigenous income units	Proportion of Indigenous CRA recipients	
	no.	%	no.	%	
Single, no dependent children aged under 16	 363 736	38.6	 8 741	29.0	
Single, no children, sharer	 121 227	12.9	 2 583	8.6	
Single, one or two dependent children aged under 16	 189 598	20.1	 8 152	27.0	
Single, three or more dependent children aged under 16	 36 746	3.9	 2 708	9.0	
Partnered, no dependent children aged under 16	 79 965	8.5	 1 610	5.3	
Partnered, one or two dependent children aged under 16	 102 456	10.9	 3 738	12.4	
Partnered, three or more dependent children aged under 16	 44 803	4.8	 2 508	8.3	
Partnered, illness or temporarily separated	 2 594	0.3	na	na	
Partnered, temporarily separated	 194	–	na	na	
Unknown income unit	na	na	na	na	
Total	 941 306	100.0	 30 168	100.0	
a Further information pertinent to the data included in this table and/or its interpretation is provided in 2007 Report, tables 16A.42 and 16A.43 and in 16A.18 and 16A.19. na Not available. – Nil or rounded to zero.
Source: FaCSIA (unpublished); tables 16A.18 and 16A.19; 2007 Report, table 16.27, p. 16.60; 2007 Report, tables 16A.42 and 16A.43.
Equity — access — special needs
The second access indicator is ‘special needs’ (box 16.18).

Box 16.18	Special needs	
‘Special needs’ access to CRA is an output indicator of the objective of CRA to provide income support recipients and low income families with financial assistance. This indicator provides the proportions of special needs income units receiving CRA, including Indigenous income units, those with a member receiving a Disability Support Pension and CRA recipients by geographic classification. This indicator provides an overview of the level of assistance provided to disadvantaged groups and facilitates comparison with special needs groups in public housing. CRA is a demand driven payment that has no benchmark in terms of the level of assistance provided to special needs customers. Additional measures of special need, which include a geographic dimension, are reported under ‘affordability’.	
	
	Table 16.12 illustrates the number and proportion of income units receiving CRA at 3 March 2006 by jurisdiction, Indigenous status and geographic location.
Overall, 58.7 per cent of total income units receiving CRA at 3 March 2006 were located in capital cities, while 41.3 per cent were in the rest of the State/Territory. For Indigenous income units receiving CRA, 34.3 per cent were located in capital cities, while 65.7 per cent lived in the rest of the State/Territory. For non‑Indigenous income units receiving CRA, 59.5 per cent were located in capital cities, while 40.5 per cent lived in the rest of the State/Territory (table 16.12).
People who own their own home are not entitled to CRA. Indigenous people receiving social security benefits are less likely to own their own home, and therefore are more likely to receive CRA. Nationally, 6.4 per cent of Indigenous income units are home owners receiving social security benefits, while 44.1 per cent of non‑Indigenous income units are home owners receiving social security benefits (FaCSIA unpublished).

Table 16.12	Income units receiving CRA, by Indigenous status and geographic location, 2006a
	Unit	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Aust	
Non-Indigenous	
	Income units	no.	 307 678	 203 414	 219 540	 79 373	 65 967	 22 984	 7 592	 4 356	 911 138	
	In capital city	%	55.0	70.2	44.3	76.6	77.3	42.6	99.5	79.5	59.5	
	In rest of State	%	45.0	29.8	55.7	23.4	22.7	57.4	0.5	20.5	40.5	
	Non-Indigenous income units as proportion of all CRA recipient income units	%	96.3	99.1	95.5	96.8	98.0	95.8	98.4	80.9	96.8	
	Non-Indigenous population, as proportion of total population	%	 97.9	 99.4	 96.6	 96.5	 98.2	 96.2	 98.7	 70.2	 97.6	
Indigenous	
	Income units	no.	 11 692	 1 945	 10 377	 2 612	 1 368	 1 007	124	 1 031	 30 168	
	In capital city	%	26.8	46.9	28.3	55.5	62.6	34.9	100.0	56.4	34.3	
	In rest of State	%	73.2	53.1	71.7	44.5	37.4	65.1	–	43.6	65.7	
	Indigenous income units as proportion of all CRA recipient income units	%	 3.7	 0.9	 4.5	 3.2	 2.0	 4.2	1.6	 19.1	 3.2	
	Indigenous population, as proportion of total population	%	 2.1	 0.6	 3.4	 3.5	 1.8	 3.8	 1.3	 29.8	 2.4	
Total income units	no.	 319 370	 205 359	 229 917	 81 985	 67 335	 23 991	 7 716	 5 387	 941 306	
a Further information pertinent to the data included in this table and/or its interpretation is provided in table 16A.20. – Nil or rounded to zero.
 Source: FaCSIA (unpublished); table 16A.20; 2007 Report, table 16.28, p. 16.62.

Outcomes
Affordability
‘Affordability’ is one of two outcome indicators reported for CRA (box 16.19).

Box 16.19	Affordability	
‘Affordability’ is an outcome indicator of the CRA objective to provide income support recipients and low income families in the private rental market with financial assistance. CRA is intended to improve affordability, not to achieve a particular benchmark. Program performance is best judged by trends over a number of years. This indicator measures the proportions of income units spending more than 30 per cent and 50 per cent of their income on rent with and without CRA. A lower proportion of recipients spending 30 per cent and 50 per cent of income on rent with CRA implies improved affordability. 
Affordability outcomes (with and without CRA) have been provided for all income units receiving CRA, Indigenous income units receiving CRA, and Disability Support Pension income units receiving CRA.	
	
	Without CRA, 26.0 per cent of recipients across Australia would have spent more than 50 per cent of their income on rent, while with CRA the proportion is 9.0 per cent (see 2007 Report, table 16A.22). Nationally, if CRA were not payable, then 55.9 per cent of the Indigenous income units receiving CRA would have spent more than 30 per cent of income on rent at 3 March 2006. Taking CRA into account, this proportion falls to 26.1 per cent (figure 16.9). Similarly, if CRA were not payable, then 19.1 per cent of Indigenous income units across Australia would have spent more than 50 per cent of income on rent at 3 March 2006. Accounting for CRA payments this proportion decreases to 5.9 per cent (table 16A.22).

Figure 16.9	Indigenous income units receiving CRA paying more than 30 per cent of income on rent, with and without CRA, 2006a
	
a Further information pertinent to the data included in this table and/or its interpretation is provided in table 16A.21.
Source: FaCSIA (unpublished); table 16A.21; 2007 Report, figure 16.23, p. 16.70.
Future directions in performance reporting
Improved reporting on housing provision to Indigenous Australians continues to be a priority. All states, territories and the Australian Government have committed to improving their reporting against the NRF, the nationally endorsed performance indicator framework for Indigenous housing.
Jurisdictions have implemented action plans to improve the availability and reliability of data on Indigenous Australians accessing main stream housing assistance.
In the 2008 Report, a performance indicator framework for Indigenous community housing will be developed and data for some indicators will be reported. 

Supporting tables
Supporting tables for data within this chapter are contained in the attachment to the compendium. These tables are identified in references throughout this chapter by an ‘A’ suffix (for example, table 16A.3 is table 3 in the housing attachment). The tables included in the attachment are listed below. 

Public housing	
Table 16A.1	Descriptive data    	
SOMIH		
Table 16A.2	Descriptive data      	
Table 16A.3	Low income households as a proportion of all new households (per cent)      	
Table 16A.4	Proportion of new tenancies allocated to households with special needs (per cent)     	
Table 16A.5	Greatest need allocations as a proportion of all new allocations (per cent)     	
Table 16A.6	Direct cost of providing assistance per dwelling     	
Table 16A.7	Occupancy rates as at 30 June (per cent)    	
Table 16A.8	Average turnaround times for vacant stock (days)     	
Table 16A.9	Total rent actually collected as a proportion of total rent charged (per cent)    	
Table 16A.10	State owned and managed Indigenous housing satisfaction survey, 2005    	
Table 16A.11	Subsidy per tenant and proportion of rebated households spending less than 30 per cent of their income in rent     	
Table 16A.12	Proportion of households where dwelling size is not appropriate due to overcrowding (per cent)      	
Community housing	
Table 16A.13	Descriptive data 	
Table 16A.14	Permanent Indigenous community housing dwellings, 30 June 2006 	
Table 16A.15	Occupied permanent Indigenous community housing dwellings, Australia, 30 June 2006 	
Table 16A.16	Condition of permanent Indigenous community housing dwellings, 2001 (per cent) 	
Table 16A.17	Average annual maintenance expenditure and weekly rent received per permanent dwelling, Indigenous community housing (dollars) 	
CRA		
Table 16A.18	Number of Indigenous income units receiving CRA, 2006 (no.)   	
Table 16A.19	Proportion of Indigenous CRA recipients, 2006 (per cent)         	
Table 16A.20	Income units receiving CRA, by Indigenous status and geographic location, 2006          	
Table 16A.21	Proportion of Indigenous income units receiving CRA, spending over 30 per cent of income on rent, with and without CRA, 2000-01 to 2005-06 (per cent)              	
Table 16A.22	Proportion of income spent on rent with and without CRA, income units with more than 50 per cent of income spent on rent, 2000-01 to 2005-06 (per cent)             	
Descriptive Information	
Table 16A.23	Treatment of assets by housing agencies, 2005-06	
Table 16A.24	Rebated State owned and managed Indigenous housing households paying assessable income on rent, by proportion of income (per cent)              	
Table 16A.25	Proportion of households in State owned and managed Indigenous housing with moderate overcrowding or underutilisation, (per cent)               	
Table 16A.26	State owned and managed Indigenous housing, non-rebated and multiple family households excluded	
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2002, Census of Population and Housing 2001, Canberra.
ABS and AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2005, The Health and Welfare of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, 2005, ABS Cat. no. 4704.0, ABS, Canberra.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, CSHA National Data Reports: Aboriginal Rental Housing Program: State and Territory Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing, Canberra.
—— 2006a, State owned and managed Indigenous housing 2005-06: CSHA national data report, Canberra.
—— 2006b, Public rental housing 2005-06: CSHA national data report, Canberra.
—— 2006c, National Housing Assistance Data Dictionary Version 3, Cat. no. HOU-147, Canberra.
—— 2006d, CSHA Public Rental and State Owned and Managed Indigenous Housing Data Manual 2005-06, Canberra.
—— 2007a (forthcoming), Indigenous housing indicators 2005-06, Canberra.
—— 2007b (forthcoming), Australia’s welfare 2007, Canberra.
CSHA (Commonwealth State Housing Agreement) 2003, Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, Australian Government, Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra.
FaCS (Department of Family and Community Services) 2003, Housing Assistance Act 1996 Annual Reports, Australian Government, Canberra.
FaCSIA (Department of Family and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) 2006, Housing Assistance Act 1996 Annual Report 1996-97, Australian Government, Canberra.
Morel, P. and Ross, H. 1993, Housing Design Assessment for Bush Communities, Tangentyere Council, Alice Springs.
SCRCSSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision) 2001, Asset Measurement in the Costing of Government Services, Productivity Commission, Canberra.
VDHS (Victorian Department of Human Services) 2001, Summary of Housing Assistance Programs 1999-2000, Victorian Government, Melbourne.