that is often required to secure a rental property
when one becomes available. This suggests that
there is scope for the expansion of locally based
and administered models with the flexibility to
respond quickly to housing crisis and or the more
rapid transition to a new property.
2.2
typically below $1000 (AHIW, 2014), although
there are programs such as the Homeground
Youth Private Rental Access Program, that
provided a larger sum for rental establishment
costs for young people aged 18-25 years. In
Victoria, the main form of government funded
brokerage private rental support is provided
through the Housing Establishment Fund (HEF).
HEF is tied to a strict eligibility criteria with the
maximum amount that can be received capped
and assistance can only be accessed once every 12
months (DHS 2014a).
A microfinance gap in private
rental support?
The application of microfinance lending principles
to housing assistance is gaining some prevalence,
although there are still only a few examples and
even fewer formalised evaluations of outcomes.
The most commonly applied housing related
microfinance has been applied in developing
countries to fund small incremental improvements
for self-built dwellings. In Australia, the recent
growth of mortgage relief programs is a noted
example. In the mortgage relief program no
interest loans, funded via state housing
authorities, are available to home owners to
prevent the loss of home ownership for those
experiencing temporary hardship (AHIW 2014).
Mortgage relief loans are governed by strict
eligibility criterion that is capped according to
house value amounts. Although there have been
limited formal evaluations on the longer-term
effectiveness of mortgage relief programs they do
illustrate the role of microfinance as a vehicle for
assisting low income households to resolve a
housing related crisis.
While the benefits of brokerage funding have not
been adequately investigated over time, the use of
flexible funds to assist with both access to and in
sustaining tenancies are a vital element in the
early intervention response to homelessness.
Housing outcomes tend to be superior when
households can be supported to remain in and
transition from one rental property to another and
avoid entering the homelessness service system
where housing needs become more difficult and
costly to resolve (AHIW 2013). An earlier review
undertaken by Jacobs et al (2007) identified both
positive and limiting aspects of private rental
support programs in assisting lower income
renting households. Private rental support
programs were found to provide much needed
short-term relief in helping households to gain
access to housing and in managing arrears but did
little to alleviate longer-term affordability
concerns.
More recent intensive supportive housing models,
including the Mental Illness Fellowship Doorway
Housing and Support Project, where vulnerable
households are rehoused in the private rental
market and provided with rental subsidies for the
duration of support face similar challenges.
Although significant gains are made whilst clients
are engaged in the program, once rental subsidies
are withdrawn the sustainability of private rental
tenancies becomes more difficult with some
clients rep