Improving the state of health hardware in Australian Indigenous housing: building more houses is not the only answer.

BACKGROUND: This article outlines a program of applied research and development known as Housing for Health that, over the period 1999-2012, targeted health-related improvements in housing for Indigenous householders in communities across regional and remote Australia. In essence, the program focuses on measuring the functionality of key appliances and structures (we term this "health hardware") against clear criteria and ensuring identified faults are fixed. METHODS: Detailed survey and assessment of all aspects of housing was undertaken, particularly focusing on the function of health hardware. All results were entered into a database and analyzed. RESULTS: The results demonstrate extremely poor initial performance of the health hardware. A key finding is that attention to maintenance of existing houses can be a cost-effective means of improving health outcomes and also suggests the need to superintend the health-conferring qualities of new infrastructure. We briefly outline the early foundations of the Housing for Health program, major findings from data gathered before and after improvements to household amenities, and our efforts to translate these findings into broader policy. CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate that simply injecting funds into housing construction is not sufficient for gaining maximum health benefit.

The state of health hardware in Aboriginal communities in rural and remote Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Many of the health problems faced by rural and remote Aboriginal people have been attributed to a poor living environment. In the mid 1980s we began a process of defining problems with the immediate living environment that would affect health. These related particularly to safety, washing and hygiene practice. METHODS: Between January 1999 and November 2006 we undertook a standardised and detailed assessment of housing in Aboriginal communities. This involved an initial assessment of 250 items in each house and living area, focusing on performance and their impact on these healthy living practices. At the first survey-fix we implemented a limited cost repair of non-functioning health hardware and then six months later returned to the communities for a repeat assessment to examine improvement in performance. RESULTS: Between January 1999 and November 2006 we assessed 4,343 houses in 132 communities in four States and the Northern Territory during survey-fix 1 (SF1) and have repeated that survey-fix assessment (SF2) in 3,448 houses in 112 of those communities. This survey demonstrates extraordinarily poor performance of Aboriginal houses. In the survey period, 71,869 items referred for repair by survey teams were inspected by licensed electricians or plumbers and 49,499 of these have so far been fixed. Only 10% of these house items requiring repair were due to vandalism or misuse. CONCLUSION: Improvements in the living environment for Aboriginal people will require a sustained commitment to the planning, funding and implementation of maintenance programs in addition to adherence to the design, construction and supervision detail outlined in the National Indigenous Housing Guide.