|
|
 |
Marginal Residents of Caravan Parks
Chris Chamberlain
‘Marginal Residents of Caravan Parks’
By Chris Chamberlain, Assoc. Prof. Chris Chamberlain, Director of the Centre for Applied Social Research, RMIT University.
These days, there is widespread acceptance of the cultural definition of homelessness which is used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) to count the homeless at the time of the census. The cultural definition identifies three segments in the homeless population on census night – primary, secondary and tertiary homelessness. Primary homelessness refers to people without conventional accommodation, such as those living on the streets, squatting in derelict buildings, or using improvised dwellings for shelter.
Secondary homelessness covers people staying in various forms of temporary accommodation: people staying with other households because they have no accommodation of their own; people staying in crisis or transitional accommodation provided under the SAAP/THM programs; and people staying in boarding houses on a short-term basis.
Tertiary homelessness refers to people who live in boarding houses on a longer-term basis, operationally defined as 13 weeks or more. People in boarding houses are homeless because their accommodation falls below widely accepted community standards. They do not have a separate room for eating and sleeping; they do not have a bathroom and kitchen of their own; and their accommodation is not self-contained.
The cultural definition classifies people who live in caravans as marginally housed. According to Chamberlain and MacKenzie (1992, p.292):
There may be people who are in accommodation situations that are only slightly below the minimum standard … This category might include … a couple renting a caravan … They are best described as … ‘marginally housed’, rather than homeless.
In a study for the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI), Wensing, Holloway and Wood (2003, p.1) take a similar line:
The primary aim of this study is to raise the level of understanding amongst housing policy analysts and practitioners in government … of the extent to which low-income residents in caravan parks are at risk of homelessness.
This paper advances the argument that marginal residents of caravan parks have a similar ‘housing situation’ to boarding house residents. They have one room for sleeping, eating and cooking. They share communal bathroom facilities and they do not have the security of tenure provided by a lease. In this case, why are boarding house residents classified as the ‘tertiary homeless’, whereas caravan park residents are called ‘marginally housed’?
First, I examine the origin of the cultural definition. Then I outline what we know about the geographical distribution of the marginal caravan park population. I show that caravans are used as alternatives to boarding houses in regional centres and country towns. Marginal residents of caravan parks are best understood as part of the tertiary population.
Origins of the Cultural Definition
Chamberlain and Mackenzie first articulated the cultural definition of homelessness in 1992, although the terms ‘primary’, ‘secondary’ and ‘tertiary’ homelessness were not used until 1999 (Chamberlain 1999). They presented the cultural definition as a theorised definition: ‘The theoretical basis for our position is explained first …’ (1992, p.290). They argued that a cultural definition of ‘homelessness’ has to be grounded in objective community standards about the minimum accommodation that people need if they want to live in accordance with widely recognised cultural standards. These standards are embedded in housing practices and ‘will be recognised … by most people because they accord with what … they see around them’ (1992, p.290). Chamberlain and MacKenzie argued that the cultural benchmark was a small rented flat, and that people in the primary, secondary and tertiary population are all homeless because they are all in ‘accommodation situations that are clearly below the minimum community standard’ (1992, p.292).
On the other hand, Chamberlain and MacKenzie’s definition of homelessness arose from reading case histories of people who used an inner-city agency in Melbourne. In the introduction to their 1992 paper, they noted, ‘In a sense, then, our arguments have been derived “inductively”, because we have moved from reading case histories of people who are “homeless”, to thinking about competing definitions of “homelessness”’ (1992, p.276).
Chamberlain and MacKenzie’s research was carried out at an information and referral service for homeless young people, close to Melbourne’s busy Flinders Street Station. It was common for younger clients to move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another including staying with friends, SAAP accommodation, short stays in boarding houses, and occasional nights sleeping rough. Older clients were more likely to stay in boarding houses for longer periods and less likely to sleep rough. In the inner city, boarding houses were an integral part of the system of service delivery – and the agency could provide vouchers for short-term accommodation at cheap, inner city hotels. The issue of homeless people being referred to caravan parks did not come to the researchers’ attention, because caravans were not used in the inner city. The cultural definition of homelessness was presented as a theorised account, but it also reflected the researchers’ field knowledge.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) used the cultural definition to enumerate the homeless population at the 1996 census. When the results from the ABS research were published in 1999 (Chamberlain 1999), it revealed 105,000 homeless people on census night, and this changed the policy landscape. Service providers in regional centres were concerned that caravan parks had been left out. They pointed out that there are few boarding houses in their communities, and that homeless people are often referred to caravan parks when there is no SAAP accommodation available.
Are caravan parks alternatives to boarding houses?
In 2001, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Chamberlain and MacKenzie 2003, Ch.7) defined marginal residents of caravan parks as:
(1) people who were renting their caravan on census night
(2) where there was no-one in the households with a full-time job and
(3) the household was at its usual address.
There were 144,000 people in caravan parks on census night 2001 (excluding overseas visitors) and the ABS divided them into four groups. First, there were people who were on holiday. They were mainly in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Holidaymakers can be identified because they report a usual address elsewhere. They were excluded from the analysis.
Second, there were people who had made a lifestyle choice to purchase a caravan and this was their usual address. They were identified at the question which asks about the tenure of the dwelling. The choices included ‘fully owned’ and ‘being purchased’, as well as ‘renting’. This group was also taken out.
Third, there were people who were renting their caravan but had a full-time job. The researchers assumed that these people could move to conventional accommodation if they wished. This group was identified at the question which asks about labour force status and the number of hours worked in the previous week. They were also excluded from the analysis.
Table 1: Marginal residents of caravan parks and number of dwellings,
NSW Vic Qld SA WA Tas NT ACT Aust
Persons 6,881 3,407 7,989 932 2,503 271 775 110 22,868
Dwellings 4,531 2,307 5,132 599 1,506 179 437 82 14,773
Source: 2001 Census of Population and Housing.
This left 22,868 people who were identified as marginal residents of caravan parks (Table 1). They were at their usual address, renting their caravan, and no-one in the household had a full-time job. There were 8,000 marginal residents of caravan parks in Queensland, 6,900 in New South Wales, 3,400 people in Victoria, 2,500 in Western Australia, and smaller numbers in the other states and territories. Marginal residents of caravan parks were 16% of the caravan park population on census night.
Table 2: Spatial distribution of persons in boarding houses and marginal residents of caravan parks
Boarding house(N=22,877) Caravan(N=22,868)
% %
Capital city 67 22
Regional centre, country town, remote location 33 78
100 100
Source: 2001 Census of Population and Housing.
There is some variation in the spatial distribution of marginal caravan park residents in different states and territories, but Table 2 gives the overall picture. Two-thirds (67%) of the boarding houses residents were in the major capital cities and one-third (33%) were in regional centres and country towns. In contrast, four-fifths (78%) of marginal caravan park dwellers were in regional centres and country towns and one-fifth (22%) were in capital cities. There is a sense in which caravans are used as an alternative to boarding houses outside of the capital cities.
New South Wales
In New South Wales, 77% of boarding house residents were in Sydney whereas 78% of marginal caravan park dwellers were in regional centres or country towns. There were 1,540 marginal residents of caravan parks in Sydney, and 5,300 marginal caravan park residents in the rest of New South Wales. This included nearly 1,000 people in Newcastle and the Hunter Valley, around 1,200 people in Richmond-Tweed (Lismore and Tweed Heads), and 1,275 on the Mid-North Coast. In Sydney, there were 570 marginal residents of caravan parks in Gosford Wyong and 450 in Fairfield-Liverpool.
Local informants in Gosford Wyong divided the caravan parks into three groups. First, there were caravan parks that specialise in niche markets, such as older people who own their caravans or mobile homes. Second, there were parks that cater only for tourists in summer, but rent out vans to poor people in winter. Rents are increased in the summer and marginal tenants are forced to move on. Third, there were caravan parks which were used as permanent accommodation for poor people. Local informants in Gosford Wyong identified three such parks in their community. Informants in Fairfield-Liverpool identified two such parks.
Queensland
In Queensland, 75% of marginal caravan park dwellers (6,000 people) were in regional centres or country towns; and 25% of marginal caravan park residents (2,000 people) were in the statistical division of Brisbane. ‘Brisbane’ covers Brisbane City (population 871,000) and growth corridors to the North, South and West of the city. Marginal residents of caravan parks (2,000 people) were mainly in the outer suburbs and growth corridors. For example, there were 12 to 14 caravan parks in Southern Brisbane. Most parks could accommodate both tourists and permanent residents, but some parks were in locations that tended not to attract tourists. Four parks were in ‘bad condition’.
There were 6,000 marginal residents of caravan parks outside of Brisbane. There were 120 people in Gladstone, 160 in Rockhampton, 180 in Mackay, 190 in Townsville, 200 in Bundaberg, 290 in Hervey Bay, 500 on the Sunshine Coast, 530 in Cairns and 700 on the Gold Coast.
There are about 30 caravan parks in Cairns. Some parks cater exclusively for tourists, but others rent out vans to poor people in the off-season. One informant named four parks which provide accommodation for marginalised people. On the Gold Coast, the marginal caravan parks are away from the main tourist destinations, with poor access to public transport. These caravan parks were congested and many of the caravans were old. Some vans had improvised ‘lean-tos’ to create an extra room.
Victoria
In Victoria, 60% of marginal caravan park dwellers were in regional centres or country towns. There were 1,380 marginal residents of caravan parks in Melbourne and 2,000 marginal residents of caravan parks across the rest of Victoria. The numbers were highest in Northern Victoria with concentrations around Shepparton and Mildura. In Melbourne, there were nearly 600 marginal residents of caravan parks in the Frankston-Dandenong Corridor (including the Mornington Peninsula).
Some parks are used by tourists in summer, but owners rent out vans to poor people in winter. When summer comes, rents are increased and marginal tenants are forced to move on. There are also caravan parks which are used as permanent accommodation for poor people. One park was described in a report as a ‘ghetto of homeless people and poverty’ (Kliger 2003, p.24). Another was called ‘unattractive and horribly overcrowded’. Most tenants in these parks are either unemployed or outside of the labour force. The parks provide ‘permanent accommodation for older people and crisis … accommodation especially for people with an addiction’, as well as accommodation for some families with children (Kliger 2003, p.24).
Conclusion
This paper has argued that marginal residents of caravan parks are best understood as part of the tertiary homeless population. Their ‘housing situation’ is similar to boarding house residents, and caravans are widely used as alternatives to boarding houses in regional centres and country towns.
Caravan parks can be categorised into four groups. First, there are many high quality caravan parks in all states and territories that are used exclusively for tourist accommodation, or that cater for niche markets such as retired people who own their caravans. Second, there are parks that are used for tourist accommodation in summer, but the owners rent out vans to poor people in the off season. Third, there are caravan parks which have a mixed clientele all year – tourists, owners and ‘permanents’ (renters). In some parks, the rented caravans are in separate areas, often ‘out the back’. Finally, there are a small number of parks that are used as permanent accommodation for poor people. I have seen a number of these parks in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, regional Victoria and the Gold Coast.
As we have seen, caravan parks are much more diverse than boarding houses. Marginal residents of caravan parks were 16% of the caravan park population on census night – most people in caravans were on holiday, and another group were permanent residents who owned their caravans. Not surprisingly, people in the general community think of caravan parks as synonymous with holiday accommodation. This will make it difficult to get community support for a change in the cultural definition of homelessness.
References
Chamberlain, C. and MacKenzie, D. (1992) ‘Understanding Contemporary Homelessness: Issues of Definition and Meaning’, Australian Journal of Social Issues, 27(4), 274-297.
Chamberlain, C. (1999) Counting the Homeless: Implications for Policy Development, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 2041.0.
Chamberlain, C. and MacKenzie, D. (2003) Counting the Homeless 2001, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 2050.0.
Kliger, Beverley and Associates (2003) Frankston City Council Social Housing Policy: Draft issues Paper (mimeo).
Wensing. E., Holloway, D. and Wood, M. (2003) On the Margins? Housing Risk among Caravan Park Residents, Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.
|
|
