Criterios de exclusión:

This section presents summaries of four selected cases in order to highlight how the key Viability Factors and Indicators are working well to achieve viability. These are ‘scenarios’ of viability. The selected cases are:

Æ Scenario 1: NT07 – an extremely remote, medium Q1, multi-service, Aboriginal Corporation.

Æ Scenario 2: SA06 – an outer regional, small Q1, multi-service, association. Æ Scenario 3: NSW02 – an inner regional, large Q4, specialist, co-operative.

Æ Scenario 4: VIC11 – a city and regional, large Q4, specialist SOMIH in transition to ICHO.

5.3.1 Scenario 1 – extremely remote

This ICHO is a medium-sized, multi-service Aboriginal Corporation (55 dwellings), in a discrete bounded settlement in a very very very remote part of the jurisdiction. The ICHO has severe issues with access, being a full day's trip from the nearest regional service centre during the dry season, while in the wet season the settlement is only accessible by plane, and then only intermittently.

These difficulties regarding poor accessibility result in high transportation costs which subsequently flow through in issues such as high maintenance and construction costs, as well as a dearth of external training opportunities for staff and governing committee members.

However, unlike a number of other ICHOs facing similar circumstances, this ICHO has high organisational capacity, housing was well maintained and well furnished and governance systems were strong. Other positive aspects were that the ICHO has strategic and business plans and an adequate information technology system in place to manage finances and assets. It appeared that this situation had been created by the community itself over the previous four years, prior to which time the ICHO was described as 'dysfunctional'.

The difference has been that the ICHO has started providing a number of services in- house rather than contracting them in from outside. Examples of this approach include:

Æ a self-funded nutrition and housekeeping program, which issued toiletry essentials to every household, including toilet paper and soap (once a week), soap powder (once a month) and soap buckets and mops (once a year). Due to their low income, many households were unable to afford these basic items. This program was cost effective as it had drastically reduced septic blockages, scabies had disappeared and houses were maintained better;

Æ a welding-for-women training program, which the ICHO hopes will eventually allow it to employ the participants to do maintenance at this and other communities, once they complete the course;

Æ the ICHO also farms chickens and sell the eggs (30doz) to a larger regional settlement. This ready supply means families have eggs as part of their daily diets.

are expensive. The strength of the community lies in its people who are committed to the community, and who have managed to harness their strengths into a model that works.

5.3.2 Scenario 2 – outer regional

This ICHO is classified as a small, corporation in a discrete urban settlement (17 houses) situated on the outskirts of a rural centre. It is situated on freehold land therefore it is not permitted to run any primary industry. It consists of 100 acres on five separate titles. It also has a caveat on eight acres which it acquired through ATSIC, and at the time the ICC was undertaking research to determine its status.

This ICHO is a multi-service provider, incorporated under the Incorporations Act as well as the Companies Act and is governed by a Community Council. It carries out regular reviews of its organisational capacities and saw all governance viability factors as being important. Council elections are held annually, with membership drawn from the local Aboriginal people. Written into their Constitution is a clause that states that if it becomes insolvent then it goes to another community. Council meetings are held monthly or as needed. The ICHO identified leadership and employment as its top priorities in terms of governance. Although all factors are seen as being important, these two are integral to their planned structure based on traditional/cultural ways of doing things that involve self-sufficiency and create employment for all members. This ICHO had documented a conflict of interest policy, a strategic plan, a risk management plan, and put information technology systems in place to manage finance, assets etc.

Its housing stock consists of 17 houses – one 4-bedroom, sixteen 3-bedroom and three community buildings – an old station house, a church and a hostel which has 16 bedrooms and is 95 per cent occupied. There is an average occupancy of 4-5 people per dwelling. All houses are in good tenable condition with three major upgrades and one minor upgrade done recently. The community originally had transportable houses, none of which have been replaced or insulated. A hostel in the main rural centre houses people going through an intensive alcohol and drug addiction program with tenants from all over Australia. When tenants leave they can go to the hostel in the community or are referred to Office of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health (OATSIH) in the rural centre or they return to their own country.

5.3.3 Scenario 3 – inner regional

This is a stand-alone ICHO (131 houses) located in a regional centre in an inner regional (assessable) location. This ICHO is comprised of partner organisations that own dispersed Indigenous housing in small more remote townships. Access to services is not an issue, but early organisational capacity development was restricted by difficulties in negotiating ‘normal terms of trade’ to get repairs and maintenance done; inherited high rental arrears ($250K) and an ongoing process of ‘mitigation of loss’ due to poor record-keeping and specifically no rent paid-to-date records being kept under past housing stock management arrangements.

The governance model is unique as they are the only ICHO that receives management funding from the government agency in this jurisdiction. This status has ensured that there has been a close relationship with the government agency in addressing these early organisational capacity and development difficulties. This ICHO has high organisational capacity and its constitution allows active partner organisation representation on its Board. Its success as an Indigenous controlled and managed Board is based on an agreed vision and staged transition to develop

governance and service delivery arrangements in partnership with the government agency. Another positive aspect is that the region has a coherent regional leadership. The ICHO governance representation is based on commitment, merit and stability. Other viability factors that have an impact on why this ICHO is functioning well might include:

Æ the existence of an Aboriginal Housing Act;

Æ support from a government agency with organisational capacity and ability to provide professional services to its ICHO sector;

Æ a mature Indigenous Housing sector reform strategy in the jurisdiction;

Æ uniform housing standards and a registration process for the Indigenous housing sector;

Æ asset management practices to maintain housing stock;

Æ high level of compliance to government agency housing standards and to the Indigenous community;

Æ clearly defined engagement protocols with the Indigenous community; Æ dedicated housing management training package;

Æ clear separation of roles between the Board and the staff;

Æ a strong management team whose strengths are an ability to work with the Indigenous community;

Æ demonstrated internal capacity to effectively network and manage key stakeholder relationships; and

Æ adequate information technology.

This stand-alone ICHO performs substantially better than other ICHOs in the jurisdiction. It has a simpler governance and management structure and manages more housing stock than other ICHOs which deliver multiple services. This difference facilitates greater levels of accountability, economies of scale, transparency and efficiency for the same level of investment in governance training and development.

5.3.4 Scenario 4 – city

This large stand-alone ICHO, incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, is located in a city, and manages housing stock (1291 dwellings) throughout the jurisdiction. This ICHO manages stock in accessible major regional centres and moderately accessible outer regional and rural centres. All relevant services were available for all of the locations where the organisation had housing stock, which meant that the organisation felt that it was able to fully service its client base regardless of location. However, the organisation worked on a rule of thumb that servicing housing in regional areas cost approximately 10 per cent more than providing the same service in metropolitan areas.

The organisation is governed by a Board of Directors, whose appointment is specialist skills based. Elections occur once every two years, and the organisation's CEO provides a written report to the Board at all of its meetings, ie, eleven times per year. The CEO rated all of the governance responsibilities listed in questions 9 and 13 as either important or very important, with leadership and organisational size being viewed as less important. With regard to size, the respondent believed that while the amount of stock under management most definitely had a major and positive impact

on the organisation's credibility and efficiency, the organisation had made a conscious decision not to place emphasis on its size for political reasons.

At the Board level, Directors undertake an extensive induction process, including governance training. Low turnover of Board members has ensured retention of momentum and drive in the organisation. The Board is skills based, with different members having expertise in areas such as legal, financial and property development. There are also a number of Board members who have links with the community. The organisation’s waiting list has 1827 people spread over 838 households, a ratio of 0.65 households waiting for each house; average waiting time is 5.7 months. The waiting list includes 170 households (418 people) on the ‘early housing’ priority list. These numbers suggest that the biggest issue the organisation faces in terms of its housing stock is its shortage of small accommodation units, with an overall shortage of dwellings being a not insignificant secondary issue.