The role of housing policy in perpetuating conditional forms of homelessness support in the era of housing first: Evidence from Australia

Abstract

Despite widespread enthusiasm for Housing First approaches to addressing homelessness, conditional models of support that require ‘housing readiness’ persist in many jurisdictions. Existing research cites an ongoing commitment to conditionality amongst homelessness services providers as a key reason for its persistence. In this paper, we argue that State housing policies also play an important role in perpetuating conditionality in the homelessness sector. Drawing on research carried out in an Australian jurisdiction, we show how policies regarding the supply and allocation of social housing compel homelessness service providers—including Housing First services—to employ conditionality practices. We also demonstrate the detrimental impact this has on the housing outcomes of homelessness people with complex needs. We conclude that our findings challenge the claim made by some that Housing First constitutes a ‘paradigm shift’, and instead highlight the complex processes of policy translation and assemblage that shape the adaptation of Housing First in different contexts.

Keywords:

• Conditionality
• homelessness
• Housing First
• housing policy
• translation
• assemblage

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all of the research participants who gave up their time to share their knowledge and experiences with us, particularly those participants with a lived experience of homelessness. We would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 As we discuss in more detail in the methodology section of the paper, we have determined that it is necessary to de-identify the jurisdiction where our research took place to preserve the confidentiality of individual participants and the organizations who they work for.

2 In Australia, ‘social housing’ comprises both public housing (subsidised rental accommodation provided by the State) and community housing (subsided rental accommodation provided by not-for-profit organisations, which can be either owned by the community housing provider or the State).

3 ‘Bayside’ is a pseudonym.

4 Unlike the original Pathways to Housing program, Housing First providers in Australia do not lease properties on behalf of their clients and have no direct role in collecting or paying clients’ rent. This is because Australian Housing First programs secure housing primarily through the social housing sector, wherein tenancy agreements are between the Housing First client and their social landlord.

5 As noted above, the findings are presented in terms of yearly averages because the SHS data does not allow for the tracking of repeat service users across successive years/waves of data. See the methodology section for a detailed description of this issue.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by The Australian Capital Territory Governance.