FHBH and Healthy Living Practices

This assignment examines the program 'Healthy Housing and Better Health' (FHBH) and its impact on improving healthy living practices in Indigenous communities. It highlights how FHBH focuses on enhancing physical infrastructure, such as water supply, food preparation, and sanitation, within homes to contribute to a healthier living environment. The analysis also considers the program's effectiveness and potential value for informing the management of other similar initiatives.

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 1
THE FIXING HOUSES FOR BETTER HEALTH (FHBH) PROGRAM
By (Student’s Name)
Professor’s Name
College
Course
Date

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 2
INTRODUCTION
The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) program is one of the Australian
government initiatives to improve Indigenous housing. It was established in the year 1999. The
program was originally under the administration of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Commission (ATSIC) until 2001 after which its administration was transferred to the
Department of Family and Community Services (FACS). The program is presently under the
administration of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs (FaHCSIA) where FHBH forms an integral share of the Program 7.2: Indigenous
Housing and Infrastructure (Australian Government 2009). The development of national
framework in 1999 stressed the significance of Healthy Living Practices. This paper thus seeks
to interrogate and critically analyze the FHBH program by describing what the program intends
to do and critiquing the rationales FHBH offers for such a need and approach chosen.
CRITICAL DESCRIPTION OF FHBH INTENSIONS
FHBH program is aimed at contributing to enhanced health in the Indigenous
communities. FHBH is a small-size program which targets at individual households level in
chosen Indigenous communities/cohorts of communities. The FHBH program undertakes the
assessment and repair to houses to promote a healthier living environment based on a
standardized methodology which prioritizes making a house safe to reside in, and moves a notch
higher to improve water supplies, sanitation as well as areas for food preparation. The program is
anticipated to lead to enhanced health results for specific communities by making such
improvements to houses.
CRITIQUING RATIONALES FHBH OFFERS FOR:
(i) A Need:

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 3
Indigenous housing programs delivery is increasingly thought-provoking. The needs for
housing increasingly tend to differ from a communities to another and further amongst houses
within communities. Responses have to be usually customized to particular communities for
efficiency and effectiveness. Housing construction alongside maintenance services in remote
regions face extra barriers established by distance as well as restraints in domestic resources
alongside capacity and capability. The program pursued to speak to such encounters via the
deliberate involvement of communities’ members in both repair alongside maintenance projects,
and by directing energies towards a level of household. Simultaneously, program remained
effectively intended to permit a consistency level to be accomplished crossways communities via
utilization of a standardized assessment alongside an operative work prioritization model.
(ii) Approach Chosen
The program’s delivery is done via a contract between FaHCSIA and the Service
Provider (a national service provider). Till year 2009, the contractual prearrangement was
supported by the funding contract between FaHCSIA and suitable state alongside Northern
Territory agencies of government for the delivery of its projects in various communities. In
certain instances, FaHCSIA further engaged in funding deals with Indigenous Community
Housing Organization to deliver required services through various projects. Beginning year
2009, the program’s projects were being delivered under the management of one contract with
Service Provider (national provider), with territory besides state administration being buttressed
to incorporate and integrate the program approach’s principles into corresponding individual
jurisdictions. Following table presents the effective seven stages for the program project delivery
in a community:

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 4
National Planning stage effectively encompass the consultation between the Service
Provider and FaHCSIA to efficiently establish resourcing as well as focus areas for the given
year as well as to deliberate on emerging issues. This is an important phase since it guarantees
reliable project procedures are created crossways the jurisdictions. The selection of the
communities is done by FaHCSIA based on effective consultation with relevant jurisdictional
government agencies.
After, effective selection of the communities to receive the FHBH project, effective
planning process follows. This efficiently survey to make essential repairs to each house,
whereby possible, under given communities. The program also effectively uses competent
project teams that encompass community members alongside tradespeople already excellently
trained in such processes to undertake efficient initial survey of every house and then proceed to
make minor repairs as they go from a house to another (the survey/fix 1 or SF1 process/stage).
Major repairs acknowledged in the survey are finished in the following 6 months.
After the completion of the work, a 2nd ‘survey or fix’ (SF2) is effectively undertaken to
efficiently finish any unresolved trivial issues of maintenance. This 2nd survey is further effective

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 5
and imperative as it measures the improvement level in health-hardware accomplished in 1st and
2nd survey. Such a process is imperative and efficient as it avails a “before (proactive) and after
(reactive)” strategy to effectively measure the impacts of FHBH program activities with respect
to each house.
In reporting phase, the Service Provider will effectively review as well as analyze the
information from each phase, prior to the provision of the individual community reports
alongside an amalgamated ultimate report. Such review and analysis are effective as they
identify the gaps and opportunities to be carried forward to the next projects hence ensuring the
FHBH meets its intended purposes.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION LEVEL
FHBH fully engages/involves the community in both design and operation. The program
addresses the housing challenges by deliberately involving and engaging the members of
community in both maintenance and repair projects and via the emphasis at a level of household.
Through its effective work prioritization model and use of standardized assessment, the
communities are integral partners in addressing the housing challenges. For instance, the project
teams are drawn from the community including tradespeople and community member. This
group is then excellently trained in process to undertake 1st survey of every house as well as
make trivial repairs along the way, a procedure known as survey or fix 1 or SF1. National
Indigenous Housing Guide (the housing guide) publication is an effective resource that help in
designing, constructing as well as maintaining Indigenous housing by emphasizing on
significance of health hardware and the Health Living Practices. In addition to the housing guide,
the group’s training, offers effective mechanisms suitable for appropriate
information/educational material dissemination and research transfer (National Indigenous

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 6
Housing Guide 2007). For example, the information gathered by tradespeople and community
members are disseminated to inform the completion of the major repairs identified in SF1. The
knowledge is transferred that help boost:
 Ability to wash clothes and bedding
 Ability to wash people, especially children
 Control of temperature in living environment
 Improvement in nutrition and ability of storing, preparing and cooking food
 Reduction in adverse effects of crowding
 Reduction in dust
 Reduction in negative contact between animals and individuals, vermin and insects
 Reduction in trauma/minor injury via increased hazard removal
 Removal of waste safety from house and immediate living environment
JUDGING FHBH
How Efficacious Does It Appear To Be?
The FHBH has been able, on a modest resource base, to arrive at core health-linked
enhancements, as schemed, to more than two-thousand houses in thirty-four communities
between year 2005, July and year 2009 June. Such communities remained dispersed
geographically in primarily far-flung regions of 5 states alongside the Northern Territory. Via
FHBH’s targeted accomplishments, it has enhanced the degree of health hardware operation or
functioning in houses.
FHBH also intended to enhance health-hardware in as several community dwellings as
feasible. The coverage degree remains imperative as underlying rationale for health remains “…
to accomplish health outcomes, most houses in a given community must have health hardware

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 7
which functions most of the time”. As has been demonstrated by FHBH performance info,
whereas the degree of enhancement in independent houses remained subject to certain
differences, as remained the degree to which enhancement in individual Healthy Living Practices
(HLP) there stood a general enhancement crossways FHBH in a manner in which houses
performed in respective abilities to buttress HLP.
How Likely Is It To Succeed In Its Aims?
Whereas the general association between public health and environmental health and
remains well-grounded, it is never true to assume that each program alongside approaches
remain correspondingly effective in contributing to enhanced health of individuals. Certain
particular program’s comparative efficiency remains valuable for FaHCSIA to boost its
corresponding knowledge of how various programs alongside interventions are able to contribute
to anticipated results that guarantee sustainability. This will remain a growingly imperative issue
for FaHCSIA provided the substantially augmented funding being availed to Indigenous housing
under the NPA on Remote Indigenous Housing (RIH) alongside the COAG expects’ contribution
to enhance environment health in communities.
To be sustainable, FHBH must embrace the areas of improvement adopted by ANAO
including; focusing on the improvement of strategy to monitor the program and evaluate its
environmental health’s contribution. The program must also build the capacity of the department
for effective assessment of improvement to the native health surfacing from its projects and
support management of NPA to remain sustainable (Szava, Moran, Walker and West 2007).
What Are The Barriers To Success?
In respect of service delivery mechanisms, it should be noted that well-designed as well
as efficiently manage contracts remain key to operative FHBH program management and the

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 8
expected outcomes’ delivery. Albeit the FHBH service delivery mechanisms design of the 2005-
2009 alongside 2009-2011-agreements with Service Provider is anchored on, and narrowly bring
into line with, the Service Provider’s methodology, having the advantage of offering clarity
regarding Service Provider’s outputs, targets and activities is obliged to render, it has
increasingly acted a s a barrier thereby limiting the FaHCSIA’s active contract’s management.
This has seen the payments under such contracts generally remaining unclearly connected to the
specific deliverables achievement whereas the contracts’ structure continuously working against
the timely provision of suitable analytical information (Tietz 2009). FaHCSIA needs to advance
the monitoring and management of agreements and contracts and established for FHBH to
effectively position itself for making informed programming decisions.
The FHBH’s performance measuring arrangements have primarily been designed to
solely report on functioning and conditions of houses. This design of the performance framework
for FHBH, however, fails to enable assessment of ongoing performance in the part of FHBH
approach integration into territory alongside state systems. The performance frameworks also
excludes capacity to collect as well as assess performance info with respect to overall intention
of FHBH that stood to provider improved health in native community (Pholi 2009).
Without this critical performance information, it remains a hurdle/barrier for FaHCSIA to
effectively guide the administration on efficiency alongside effectiveness of FHBH approach and
compare such an approach to potential alternatives. Being a small program, FHBH faces
constraints on the comprehensiveness level which is able to be integrated in framework for the
performance framework. However, potential openings exist for FaHCSIA to carry out additional
work in such a region aimed at consolidation its comprehension of connections between
particular mechanism of buttressing the HLP and enhanced health (Porter 2009).

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 9
Regarding FHBH’s management arrangements, inherent tensions are manifested in the
development of an appropriate management framework, proportionate to the FHBH’s size,
which can help agencies to effectively target resources for thoroughgoing influence and to
supplement additional programs. Despite the methodology of Service Provider providing
comprehensive approach to FHBH’s strategy alongside implementation, slight inducement for
FaHCSIA to advance comprehensive strategies for implementation guidelines remains a key
barrier (Parnell and Seemann 2005).
Even though such a barrier hasn’t essentially impaired the FHBH’s performance in
accomplishing specific output targets the government has set for house repairs, it has led to
discrepancies in the manner FHBH purposes are being reported in public as well as explicated in
various agreements for funding, alongside FaHCSIA’s weaknesses in its ability to monitor and
report consistently on FHBH performance. These are pointers towards a situation in which the
FHBH program has never been connected to vaster policy goals; additionally, prospects for
FaHCSIA to consider ways of management consolidation of small-size programs are ripe to offer
an increasingly tactical outlook (Osborne, Baum and Brown 2013).
How Might It Be Improved?
The ANAO has acknowledged various areas of FHBH improvement capable of being
made in the present program phase to benefit the future program’s management. Essentially, the
improvement in FHBH program should stress on the improvement of the approach to monitoring
the program as well as evaluating its contribution to the environmental health (McPeakea and
Pholerosb 2007). Also, there is a need to increasingly build the environmental capacity to
efficiently assess improvements to the Indigenous health emerging from FHBH housing

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 10
activities to further support the management of the program’s National Partnership Agreement
(NPA).
The program should consider the NPA on Remote Indigenous Housing. This is because
NPA is intended to eventually culminate in improvements in Indigenous health through the
provision of better dwelling environments. Whereas NPA’s operation entails substantial large
budget compared to FHBH program, and remains a distinct program with a dissimilar
methodology, NPA shares with FHBH an approach anchored on seeking improvement via an
emphasis on Healthy Living Practices’ support (Fien, Charlesworth, Lee, Morris, Baker, and
Grice 2008). Thus, there is a potential value in FaHCSIA considering its FHBH program
management experience, particularly, the hurdles of assessing the connections between activities
of the program besides enhanced health, to inform the efficient monitoring alongside evaluation
arrangements’ development for NPA.
CONCLUSION
FHBH has shown the ability to enhance a house capability to buttress Healthy Living
Practices by effectively focusing its attention towards the improvement of physical equipment
(health hardware) essential for healthy and hygienic living. Health hardware links to water
supply, food preparation and sanitation areas of the house. FHBH has been a core mechanism in
contributing towards safe and healthy housing in Indigenous communities by implementing a
housing repair alongside maintenance system anchored on Healthy Living Practices’ application.
References

The Fixing Houses for Better Health (FHBH) Program 11
Australian Government. 2009. Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage: The Challenge for
Australia, p. 21.
Fien, J., Charlesworth, E., Lee, G., Morris, D., Baker, D.C. and Grice, T., 2008. Towards a
design framework for remote Indigenous housing.
McPeakea, T. and Pholerosb, P., 2007. Fixing houses for better health in remote communities.
Improving the lives of Australians.
National Indigenous Housing Guide, third edition 2007, p. 11.
Osborne, K., Baum, F. and Brown, L., 2013. Closing the gap. What works? A review of actions
addressing the social and economic determinants of Indigenous health.
Parnell, M. and Seemann, K., 2005, October. Developing lifecycle models for sustainable
investment in desert communities. In Proceedings of the Building for Diversity National Housing
Conference 2005 (pp. 337-347).
Pholi, K., 2009. Is' Close the Gap' a useful approach to improving the health and wellbeing of
Indigenous Australians? Australian Review of Public Affairs: Journal, 9(2).
Porter, R., 2009. From community housing to public housing in Northern Territory remote
Aboriginal communities: the policy context. Alice Springs: Desert Knowledge CRC.
Szava, A., Moran, M., Walker, B. and West, G., 2007. The Cost of Housing in remote
Indigenous Communities: Views from the Northern Territory Construction Industry. Centre for
Appropriate Technology, Alice Springs.
Tietz, C., 2009. Stirring appetites in design: a user centered product design approach to improve
environmental health in remote Indigenous communities in Australia. Verified OK.