❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding proposed funding cuts to women's refuges in the Kimberley and Pilbara, focusing on the rationale behind the cuts and their potential impact. The Minister's response defends the changes as improving service delivery through outreach programs.
AnsweredQoN 1011Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WOMEN'S
REFUGES — KIMBERLEY AND PILBARA — FUNDING
1011. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the
Minister for Child Protection:
I refer to the proposed funding cuts to four women's
refuges or safe houses in the Kimberley and Pilbara.
(1) What is
the basis for the occupancy rates used by the director general of the
Department of Child Protection and Family Services to calculate the reduction
in funding for each of the four services?
(2) Apart from
occupancy rates, what other factors are taken into account when calculating the
funding for each refuge or safe house located in a remote area? Are the added
complexities, including road conditions, distances between centres and
communities, and cultural considerations et cetera, factored in?
(3) Will the
minister please explain exactly how a reduction in funding for safe houses in
Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Wyndham and Roebourne will ''support
better outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic violence''
in these centres, as stated in the minister's answer to question
without notice 827 on 21 November 2013?
(4) On what
basis did DCPFS refer to the Onslow women's shelter as one of the
services on which it based its costings to run a safe house—as stated
in a letter dated 3 October 2013 from DCPFS to the Marninwarntikura Fitzroy
Women's Resource Centre—when that centre in Onslow had shut
down 18 months earlier and police in Onslow now drive women and children to
Karratha when they need to access crisis accommodation and support services?
(5) Why is it
that only Aboriginal women's refuge and safe house services are
affected by the proposed cuts?
REFUGES — KIMBERLEY AND PILBARA — FUNDING
1011. Hon ROBIN CHAPPLE to the
Minister for Child Protection:
I refer to the proposed funding cuts to four women's
refuges or safe houses in the Kimberley and Pilbara.
(1) What is
the basis for the occupancy rates used by the director general of the
Department of Child Protection and Family Services to calculate the reduction
in funding for each of the four services?
(2) Apart from
occupancy rates, what other factors are taken into account when calculating the
funding for each refuge or safe house located in a remote area? Are the added
complexities, including road conditions, distances between centres and
communities, and cultural considerations et cetera, factored in?
(3) Will the
minister please explain exactly how a reduction in funding for safe houses in
Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Wyndham and Roebourne will ''support
better outcomes for women and children experiencing domestic violence''
in these centres, as stated in the minister's answer to question
without notice 827 on 21 November 2013?
(4) On what
basis did DCPFS refer to the Onslow women's shelter as one of the
services on which it based its costings to run a safe house—as stated
in a letter dated 3 October 2013 from DCPFS to the Marninwarntikura Fitzroy
Women's Resource Centre—when that centre in Onslow had shut
down 18 months earlier and police in Onslow now drive women and children to
Karratha when they need to access crisis accommodation and support services?
(5) Why is it
that only Aboriginal women's refuge and safe house services are
affected by the proposed cuts?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice
of this question.
(1) The
department utilised data from the national Specialist Homelessness Services
which records information on clients they assist, as well as accessing other
sources of information to identify the utilisation of services. The SHS data is
submitted directly by services to the Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare. AIHW generates agency reports based on the data submitted by the
services and these reports are provided by AIHW to each service, as well as the
Department for Child Protection and Family Support and any other relevant
funding body. The AIHW collects data from approximately 1 500 agencies across
Australia on behalf of states and territories.
(2) The
department used multiple information sources including, but not limited to, the
Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services WA report for
the initial mapping and scoping of services across Western Australia; the bed
count registry; Specialist Homelessness Services data collection; services
reviews; service contracting progress reports; and consultation with the
relevant country departmental districts.
Both the location and the nuances of
the region have informed the revised service delivery model so that women
receive both a centre-based service and an outreach service if they do not want
to access the safe house. Many women and children, because of their location,
are currently unable to access the centre-based service. The provision of an
alternative model including outreach will achieve this.
(3) Currently
services only provide a centre-based safe house service which is staffed 24/7
even when the service is empty. An outreach-focused model will provide support
services to women after they leave the safe house and also to women who may
never access the accommodation provided by the safe house. The safe house
component of the service will still operate and be available during business
hours and at night, but it will only be staffed when women and children are
actually staying in the safe house. During business hours, workers from the
safe house will provide an outreach service instead of remaining in the safe
house, even when it is empty. The safe house will also be provided with
brokerage funding that can be flexibly utilised to buy or access other services
to assist women and children to meet their needs. This funding can be used for
a broad range of needs, including travel to leave the region, food, alternative
accommodation, costs associated with the needs of accompanying children and
medical needs. Brokerage funding is discretionary and can be used flexibly to
deliver better outcomes for women and children.
(4) I am
advised that in the letter dated 3 October 2013 to the Marninwarntikura Fitzroy
Women's Resource Centre mention was made of comparable safe house
funding across Western Australia. The Onslow service was only one of a number
of comparable safe houses considered to assist in determining the funding
level.
(5) The four
safe houses affected by the revised service delivery model have been identified
as having a high vacancy rate and a low number of clients assisted. Clients
stay for short periods and do not receive case management or outreach services.
The four safe houses have shown consistent occupancy rates of below 30 per
cent. The services are not Aboriginal specific. Like most services around
Western Australia, they are funded to provide services to all women and children
in need.
of this question.
(1) The
department utilised data from the national Specialist Homelessness Services
which records information on clients they assist, as well as accessing other
sources of information to identify the utilisation of services. The SHS data is
submitted directly by services to the Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare. AIHW generates agency reports based on the data submitted by the
services and these reports are provided by AIHW to each service, as well as the
Department for Child Protection and Family Support and any other relevant
funding body. The AIHW collects data from approximately 1 500 agencies across
Australia on behalf of states and territories.
(2) The
department used multiple information sources including, but not limited to, the
Women's Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services WA report for
the initial mapping and scoping of services across Western Australia; the bed
count registry; Specialist Homelessness Services data collection; services
reviews; service contracting progress reports; and consultation with the
relevant country departmental districts.
Both the location and the nuances of
the region have informed the revised service delivery model so that women
receive both a centre-based service and an outreach service if they do not want
to access the safe house. Many women and children, because of their location,
are currently unable to access the centre-based service. The provision of an
alternative model including outreach will achieve this.
(3) Currently
services only provide a centre-based safe house service which is staffed 24/7
even when the service is empty. An outreach-focused model will provide support
services to women after they leave the safe house and also to women who may
never access the accommodation provided by the safe house. The safe house
component of the service will still operate and be available during business
hours and at night, but it will only be staffed when women and children are
actually staying in the safe house. During business hours, workers from the
safe house will provide an outreach service instead of remaining in the safe
house, even when it is empty. The safe house will also be provided with
brokerage funding that can be flexibly utilised to buy or access other services
to assist women and children to meet their needs. This funding can be used for
a broad range of needs, including travel to leave the region, food, alternative
accommodation, costs associated with the needs of accompanying children and
medical needs. Brokerage funding is discretionary and can be used flexibly to
deliver better outcomes for women and children.
(4) I am
advised that in the letter dated 3 October 2013 to the Marninwarntikura Fitzroy
Women's Resource Centre mention was made of comparable safe house
funding across Western Australia. The Onslow service was only one of a number
of comparable safe houses considered to assist in determining the funding
level.
(5) The four
safe houses affected by the revised service delivery model have been identified
as having a high vacancy rate and a low number of clients assisted. Clients
stay for short periods and do not receive case management or outreach services.
The four safe houses have shown consistent occupancy rates of below 30 per
cent. The services are not Aboriginal specific. Like most services around
Western Australia, they are funded to provide services to all women and children
in need.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.