By Marika Rozakis
SYDNEY — Youth accommodation workers, employed under the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP), consistently at the end of each funding year have to spend much time and energy lobbying to get recurrent funding adequate to provide the type and level of service they do for young homeless people. And consistently each year, workers' job security is threatened.
There are currently a number of youth refuges whose recurrent funding has not been automatically provided and, as a consequence in the shortfall period, they have had to close as a 24-hour youth accommodation service or fund the service by undermining workers' conditions set out in the 1991 Social and Community Services Award.
The other band-aid strategies to cover shortfalls are one-off grants or the next quarterly cheque being brought forward (postponing the funding crisis till even earlier in the next quarter). This usually happens only when there is imminent threat of closure to SAAP-funded services.
The Supported Accommodation Assistance Act refers to "financial assistance to the States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory in connection with the provision of supported accommodation services". The Commonwealth government gives a certain amount of funds to each state and territory, which is made available at the beginning of each financial year. The states then match some of it dollar for dollar.
In NSW, these funds are administered through the Department of Community Services. Within the bureaucratic channels leading from Commonwealth to actual refuges, the money seems to become blocked and harder to obtain. As a consequence, the services and workers suffer financial crisis and the young people lose a much needed and rare accommodation service.
In May 1991 the Social and Community Services Award for youth workers was declared by the Industrial Commission. This for the first time recognised youth accommodation workers for working at night, overnight, weekends and public holidays, in the form of penalty rates.
However, funding to services has never been adequately increased to accommodate the conditions set out in the award. The funding received by some youth services actually still prevents workers from receiving award wages and conditions.
This outrageous situation makes a farce of the award and the struggle to obtain these conditions in the first place. Three years down the track, increased recurrent funding has not happened, even though the then minister for community services, John Hannaford, stated that no service would close due to implementation of the award.
Why increase workers' stress levels even further (in an already stressful job). Youth workers are not paid to worry about funding issues or whether they will have a job to go to the following week. They are paid to house, assist, support and lobby for young homeless people. Why then, when the funds and the commitment are supposed to be there, has this problem not been solved yet?