followed up if payments are not being made. The
longer-term viability of microfinance programs
rests on the capacity of borrowers to repay the
loans. However, it is recognised within the
program that there will be a proportion of the
funds that will not be repaid and clear procedures
need to be established for how funds are to be
recovered and in what instances loans can be
‘written off’. The use of Centrelink direct debit
provides some assurance of the longer-term
viability and has been effective for minimising
defaults. However, given the social objectives of
the program, repayment also needs to be balanced
against the prevention of additional hardship and
pending homelessness.
While the service data presented in section 4
indicated that most clients were keeping up with
their repayment schedule or had managed to
repay their loan, the case study of Sue below
shows that despite the efforts of staff, not all
clients are prepared to engage in the support
process and honour their repayment
commitments. The case study indicates the critical
importance of the initial assessment process in
determining eligibility and being able to continue
to locate clients over time.
Sue
11 contacts
Sue had been issued a notice to vacate her property when she presented to our service. She
had been accepted into another property however did not have the funds for rent in advance.
She was receiving Centrelink benefits and was also self-employed as a beautician and although
was not currently working had been offered a job by a friend that she could begin in a few
months time.
Sue was not eligible for a bond loan due to being self-employed and not completing her tax
return last year. She had also tried to access other housing services for assistance with the rent
in advance and was unsuccessful. She paid the bond with her savings and then was left with no
options for her rent in advance which was $867. Following an assessment, it was decided that
Sue would be assisted by WCC given her imminent risk of homelessness. Despite initial
engagement, Sue did not make the first scheduled payment. Contact was difficult to make with
Sue and on the occasion that contact was successful she advised that she was going through a
stressful time and not managing well. Even though we offered support, including outreach, this
was not successful and no further contact was made with Sue and no payments of the loan have
been made.
25