Housing is a human right. Not just bricks and mortar housing but a right to stable, secure, safe housing. Yet, this right is rarely legislated for, particularly for people with disability. This is despite the fact that many countries are signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), which articulates the right to housing for people with disabilities. Thus, enforcing and enacting this right can be challenging. The current paper focuses on the current state of policy, practise and law in this regard in Australia. Homelessness is a critical problem in Australia. Estimates taken from the 2021 Australian Census show 122,494 people experiencing homelessness, an increase since the 2016 Census of over 6000 people. It is estimated that 6% of this homeless population is sleeping rough (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2023). Traditionally, homelessness policy focused on rough sleepers as the “typical” group of people who were homeless without acknowledgement or recognition of the diverse population of people who are homeless across a variety of inadequate, unsafe or unstable living arrangements. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, a person is considered homeless if their living arrangement “is in a dwelling that is inadequate; has no tenure, or if their initial tenure is short and not extendable; and does not allow them to have control of and access to space for social relations.” (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2021).

The factors leading to homelessness are well-known and multi-factorial. Given the persistence of the problem as well as the increasing size of the homeless population, it is an issue that is not yet addressed sufficiently through policy and practise to date. Inequity in any area of life is not experienced equitably, and cumulative disadvantage and discrimination need to be acknowledged and redressed through policy and legislation. As a result, intersectionality within and across population groups is a fundamental consideration which must be considered in any discussion of homelessness.

Gaetz et al. (2013) outlined the structural-, system- and individual-level factors that lead to homelessness. Structural and system issues exist at a macro level. These include the availability of affordable housing, access to employment and unemployment rates, equity in income and education, and the way in which various systems of support beyond housing and homelessness interact to compound or otherwise the structural and individual issues that exist. At a micro level, an individual’s exposure to disability, domestic abuse, and addiction for example, may increase the probability of a person or family becoming homeless.

Within the Australian context, there was a 42% reduction in social housing tenancies granted in 2020/1, whilst demand for social housing increased by 16% in that same time period (Pawson & Lilley, 2022). Income inadequacy and the need for rent assistance are evident in Australia. Wiesel (2021) estimated that nearly a third of people receiving the Disability Support Pension (DSP) experience affordability stress. The level of income inadequacy experienced by people with disability is much greater, with approximately 3 in 10 people on the DSP spending 30% of gross household income or more on rent (Wiesel, 2021). It is estimated that 45% of Australians living with disability are in or close to living in poverty (VicHealth, 2012).

The interplay of factors leading to homelessness is complex and experienced to different degrees by different population groups. Diversity within the population of people who are homeless is beginning to be recognised, with acknowledgement of populations beyond “rough sleepers”. Exposure to structural, system and individual factors is heightened for people with disability (Durbin et al., 2018). This group is at greater risk of poverty, low income, exclusion from employment and reliance on disability support, resulting in a greater need for affordable social housing (Brown & McCann, 2021; Durbin et al., 2018). People with disability are said to be at greater risk of homelessness than people without disability (Beer et al., 2011), with people with mental health, intellectual and psychological disability at even greater risk (Beer et al., 2020). Yet, the extent to which people with disability are acknowledged within the responses to addressing the homelessness issue is unclear.

The disparity in experience within the disability population is an important factor for policy and practise to recognise. This disparity must be considered in any interventions which aim to support this population out of homelessness and to prevent entry into homelessness. Access to housing for people with disability has some idiosyncratic issues that need highlighting. For example, modifications to housing may be required for some. Assistance with daily living activities to maintain and manage a home may be required by others. The need for support and services changes over time, with age and changes in health.

Some people with disability, notably people with intellectual disability and psychosocial disability, have been exposed to high levels of institutionalisation. Institutional or congregate arrangements persist for many people with intellectual disability (McCarron et al., 2018; Wiesel and Bigby, 2015). Many people with disability continue to be denied choice and control over where they live (O’Donovan, 2021).

Structural and system issues related to access to education and employment perpetuate inequity in accessing choice and control of where one lives and limits the options available for people with disability. Specifically, exclusion from the open labour market, lower wages when in employment and greater reliance on social welfare result in access to the private rental market being prohibitive for many people with life-long disabilities with the reliance on accessible, affordable social housing heightened (O’Donovan et al., 2021).

Within Australia, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is an important contextual factor to consider. National Disability Insurance Scheme was established through the NDIS Act 2013 (Australian Government, 2013b).

There is limited research evidence on the experiences of and factors leading to homelessness for people with disability and limited understanding of how policy and practise responds to the needs of people with disability who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. This may be because the housing experiences of people with disability have been restricted to a much greater extent compared with non-disabled people. A history of institutionalisation, a tendency to remain living at home with parents into adulthood and limited choice and control over who and where one lives are frequently experienced. There has consistently been an absence of housing policy specifically addressing the needs of people with disability (Wiesel, 2021), with the Australian housing system being described as “fractured and requires review” (Frankish, 2018).

De-institutionalisation and the shift to smaller community-based and independent living have not delivered the level of autonomy and range of housing options anticipated. In a review of home and living options, it was found that people with disability have transitioned to living arrangements other than institutional and group home settings, to community and supported living, independent or semi-independent, home ownership (including shared equity) and home pooling initiatives (O’Donovan et al., 2021). Home modifications were also acknowledged as supporting a transition to greater independence. Key enablers to facilitate transition at a policy level included the availability of flexible funding models and an adequate supply of appropriate housing. At a community level, the authors identified outreach support and formal and informal supports at an interpersonal level as important enablers of transition (O’Donovan et al., 2021).

Innovative approaches to individualised supported living can result in greater levels of autonomy, independence and control, yet, although essential to success, having access to the right amount and type of support and ensuring the financial stability of these arrangements can often be challenging (Thorensen et al., 2022). The authors highlighted that greater coordination of housing and disability policies is required in order to facilitate more opportunities for people with disabilities to develop and maintain individualised supported living arrangements.

In a small mixed methods study of experiences of homelessness and risk of homelessness by people with intellectual disability and/or autism, O’Donovan and colleagues (2021) found that a contributing factor to repeated homelessness was low income and high reliance on the private rental market. Low levels of social housing were available, and this resulted in people returning to residential services. For people with disability, living with parents, many of whom are ageing, the lack of future care planning in tandem with the lack of clear available future living options for people with disability and the limited social housing available are leading to the risk of homelessness (O’Donovan et al., 2021).

This environmental scan aims to explore the extent to which current homelessness policies and strategies are inclusive of and responsive to people with disabilities in Australia. The paper reports on an environmental scan of housing and homelessness policy documents and other grey literature in Australia.

Method

An environmental scan is a method of identifying evidence and informing decision-making on policy and services (Charlton et al., 2021). Environmental scanning can either adopt a formal approach, where searching is systematic and coordinated, or an informal approach, where searches are more reactive and ad hoc. This methodology is a critical approach to identifying gaps and limitations of current policy as well as identifying emerging practise interventions which have yet to feature in published academic literature (Charlton et al., 2019; Pappas et al., 2011). The environmental scan method was adopted in order to provide a rapid review of the policy landscape for the Australian Disability Royal Commission. The rapid review format was necessitated by the deadlines associated with the Commission. As well as this, the environmental scan method was adopted to assess the landscape outside the academic literature and identify policies and interventions which have not necessarily been empirically tested or subject to peer review.

There is no one established way to conduct an environmental scan (Charlton et al., 2021). For the purposes of this scan, the exact method was guided by the research questions, which were as follows: “To what extent do current Australian policies address the needs of homeless people with disability?”, “What evidence of effective interventions to support exit from or entry to homelessness for people with disabilities exist?” and finally, “What are the current gaps in policy in relation to housing, homelessness and people with disabilities?”.

The scan targeted documents that focused on the intersection of homelessness and disability. The researchers conducted targeted searches to identify documents related to this intersection in the following areas: Analysis and Policy Observatory (APO) database; key national homelessness reports and strategies; national and state level parliamentary inquiries; state-level homelessness reports and strategies; peak and non-government organisation bodies across the disability, housing, and homelessness sector for research, strategy and policies on homelessness and disability; and international policy, strategy or interventions from key countries.

Academic and peer-reviewed literature were excluded from the scan. However, in some instances, key texts such as book chapters or commentaries were reviewed where appropriate to provide context for the analysis. Search terms were adjusted to find specific documents. As a result, the search terms were iterative depending on the content being searched. Example search terms included homelessness, disability, rough sleeping, housing, and homelessness interventions, systems change. The documents were limited to the most recent iterations available (up to June 2022), as the aim of the scan was to provide an analysis of the current state of policy rather than change and trends over time. In total, 96 documents were included in data extraction and analysis. These documents are presented in Supplementary Materials Table 1.

A data extraction template was designed by the two authors in consultation with a wider review team with expertise in content knowledge. The researchers found that the data extraction form was effective for policy documents and reports. However, it was not easily applied to other types of documents (for example, statements of assurances) as they did not necessarily contain all the details described in the extraction form. Despite this, there were core variables which were extracted for each document type. These included definition and populations of homelessness, inclusion of people with disability, structural and system issues identified, interventions or approaches to addressing homelessness used and outcome measures (where applicable). The data were divided by document type and the document types were divided between researchers to complete the extraction. Following the review and data extraction of each document, the authors conducted a narrative synthesis and thematic analysis.

Results

The results have been presented according to the research questions. The materials identified in the environmental scan and included in the review for analysis are presented in Supplementary Material Table 1.

To What Extent do Current Australian Policies Address the Needs of Homeless People with Disabilities?

Policy and Strategy Response to Homelessness and People with Disability

No national housing or homelessness policy exists in Australia. There is also no national legislation for the right to a home, despite Australia being a signatory to various human rights conventions. These include the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Assembly, UN General, 1948) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, United Nations, 2006), as two examples.

Responsibility for housing and homelessness is at the state and territory level, funded through the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) with specific commitments at the state level outlined in the bilateral agreement between State and Commonwealth governments. Six priority groups are identified within the NHHA. These are women and children who experience domestic violence, children and young people, First Nations people, people experiencing repeat homelessness, individuals leaving institutions and older people. People with disability were not identified as a national priority cohort. The NHHA is currently under review, and of the 101 submissions to the review made online, 71 mentioned people with disabilities specifically.

State governments have the scope to include additional priority cohorts within their bilateral agreements. Four States include some reference to people with disability (Tasmania, Queensland, New South Wales, Australian State Territory) to varying degrees of specificity. New South Wales and Queensland explicitly refer to people with disability as an at-risk group and offer potential solutions for that group. The state governments of Western Australia, Victoria, South Australia and the Northern Territory refer to people with mental health and psychiatric disability as an at-risk group.

Furthermore, the agreement as to the provision of disability services between the Federal and State governments is outlined in the National Disability Agreement (Council of Australia & States and Territories, (COAG), 2009). The Productivity Commission reviewed this agreement in 2019 (Australian Government, Productivity Commission, 2019) and named the NHHA as the tool to address housing needs for people with disability. It also reaffirms that housing for people with disability will be provided by state bodies. This agreement replaces the National Affordable Housing Agreement (COAG 2018e, cl 9) (Australian Government, Productivity Commission, 2019). In addition, recommendations by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs Inquiry into Homelessness (Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2021), state that people with disability should be acknowledged as a priority cohort for responses to homelessness and housing.

The NDIS Supports for Participants Rules 2013, (Australian Government, 2013a), described the agency as being broadly responsible for behavioural supports to maintain a tenancy, home modifications in both private and congregate housing (however, it remains the responsibility of housing authorities to develop, maintain and refurbish stock that meets the needs of people with disability) and financial support for users who require an integrated housing and support model. The NDIS is not responsible for either providing housing for people in need of housing assistance or ensuring that new publicly funded housing stock incorporates Liveable Housing Design features, government homelessness-specific services or improvement of community infrastructure.

The proportion of people with disability who will be eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme is estimated at around 6% (Allen et al., 2016). Thus, any discussion of what the National Disability Insurance Scheme can and cannot do in relation to housing and homelessness must be interpreted with this in mind, and the greater majority of people with disability who are not eligible for NDIS must not be forgotten. This was highlighted in the Disability Housing Futures Working Group Final Report (Allen et al., 2016) which stated “Alternative housing assistance options should be developed for people with disability who will be ineligible for NDIS specialist housing. This includes improved access to social housing, co-investment opportunities for family members and charitable organisations, and shared equity home ownership.”

The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Progress Report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019) recommends action from the Council of Australian Government Disability Reform Council in relation to housing for people with disability. The government’s response to this reinforced the responsibility for housing lies at state and territory levels, including responsibility for ensuring accessible housing options.

The Commonwealth’s response to the Standing Committee Recommendation 16 was one of support in principle which stated that.

Responsibility for the provision of accommodation for people with disability is a shared responsibility between the Australian Government and states. The division of responsibilities of different sectors delivering supports to people with a disability is set out in the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) Applied Principles and Tables of Support, which seeks to guide the interaction between the NDIS and mainstream supports, agreed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2013. The Australian Government and states, through Disability Ministers, are continuing to work to improve the availability of short, medium and longer-term accommodation options, provided through the National Disability Insurance Scheme and mainstream systems, for all people living with disability.

Concern regarding housing for people with disability in Australia was raised by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of Australia (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2019). Specifically, there were concerns regarding the continued placement of young people into aged care facilities and a shift towards re-institutionalisation as a result of the Specialist Disability Accommodation scheme under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

What Evidence of Effective Interventions or Approaches to Support Exit from or Entry to Homelessness for People With Disabilities Exist in Australia?

Policy approaches range from crisis and emergency responses to preventative measures and early intervention. These policy approaches have informed the use of a number of models and approaches in the Australian context, with varying degrees of evidence behind them. This section describes the key intervention models identified in the scan.

Interventions and People with Disability

A variety of preventative measures were identified across the scanned literature. Housing First (HF) was identified as a model which was adopted by many OECD countries. The inclusion of this model was evident in the Australian policies and practises identified in the review. When Housing First was referred to, people with disability were not named specifically, with it applied in more universal terms.

Housing First is primarily a structural- and system-level intervention, includes the provision of physical housing and has at its core the improvement of systems collaboration. There are many examples of Housing First models and principles being implemented across Australia. These are described with other housing models identified across the literature in Supplementary Materials Table 2. There is no nationally consistent approach or commitment to Housing First but states and non-government organisations have adopted Housing First in various contexts.

Examples in Australia include the Together Home and Supported Transition and Engagement Program (STEP). However, though principles of Housing First are incorporated into these programmes, neither are long-term programmes, and both require service engagement (New South Wales Audit Office, 2021). The Common Ground intervention was identified as another model which uses the principles of Housing First. Common Ground seeks to provide permanent housing to people who have experienced long-term homelessness. It also offers onsite wraparound support, with housing assigned irrespective of the engagement with support (Mission Australia, 2022).

The majority of the literature recognised that the inadequate supply of housing stock in Australia is a substantial contributor to the issue of homelessness. In particular, the state housing plans almost universally agreed that the physical provision of affordable and appropriate housing is a fundamental element of reducing homelessness. The state housing plans had reference to facilitating land development and rezoning, as well as in some cases rent assistance for people who required it.

Sustaining Tenancies in Social Housing (STSH) programme assists people living in the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) Social Housing to maintain their tenancy and increase their overall well-being. It is based on a shared-care approach, working collaboratively with organisations and people to address at-risk tenancies and subsequently homelessness, and increases the participants’ social connection to improve overall well-being. A pilot was run in NSW and deemed successful with recommendations to expand the model to private as well as social tenancies (Mission Australia, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). This approach is deemed a structural intervention, as it focuses on the improvement of housing stock and income inadequacy.

The Community of Schools and Services (COSS) model is an early intervention model targeted at supporting young people who are vulnerable with an exemplar in Australia known as the Geelong Project (Spinney et al., 2020). This approach is a cross-system approach with a strong focus on maintaining young people in education and supporting family networks. There is a strong focus on collaboration, data sharing and shared decision-making across organisations (Spinney et al., 2020). The Geelong Project demonstrated a reduction in early school leaving by 20% and a reduction in homelessness by 40% (Spinney et al., 2020).

Wraparound services refer to a collaborative care approach at the point of delivery, rather than system-level collaboration. The process of delivering wraparound services involves team-based case management. The term wraparound support is used to describe any programme that is flexible, family- or person-oriented and comprehensive—that is, a number of organisations work together to provide a complete programme of support.

Point-of-delivery approaches, such as wraparound services, are in practise in Australia. The Common Ground programme is an example of a wraparound service currently operating in Sydney, New South Wales. This 6-storey residential space, with inbuilt support services through Camperdown Support Services (CSS) prioritises people who have experienced long-term homelessness. Individual case management and interdisciplinary support across health, social, and welfare are provided. Specific outcome data is not provided within the report (Mission Australia, 2022), although Bullen et al. (2016) suggest that this is an effective model of care which results in improved outcomes for participants.

In addition to the specific interventions above, the review of Australian policy and practise also identified a shift towards models of systems integration and collaboration with services and systems outside of the homelessness sector but with the goal of reducing homelessness. Crisis responses continue to be needed, the policy shift is one to reduce future homelessness and reduce the over-reliance on crisis management. Gaetz and Dej (2017) identified six factors which can support the prevention of homelessness. These included engaging all levels of government, integrated systems responses at both government and community levels, data management and sharing across systems, co-ordinated prevention and housing first strategies and a robust evaluation and feedback system (Gaetz & Dej, 2017).

What are the Current Gaps in Policy in Relation to Housing, Homelessness and People with Disabilities?

In reviewing policy and practise, a number of gaps in the response to homelessness for people with disabilities were identified. A siloed approach and response to homelessness continues to be prevalent in Australia and there is a continued failure of systems outside of homelessness to work collaboratively to prevent people with disability from becoming homeless. The “No exit to homelessness” or “no wrong door” approach relates specifically to people in the criminal justice system or with mental health diagnoses. (New South Wales Government, NSW Government, 2020).

System bureaucracy has been found to make accessing social housing difficult for people with disability (O’Donovan, et al., 2021). This is nowhere more evident in Australia with the NDIS. The Protocol for Homeless People in Public Places (Committee on Community Services, 2020) noted how people with disability who are homeless were challenged in accessing disability support. Pathways and access to the NDIS are another noted challenge for people who are homeless (Committee on Community Services, 2020). These access and bureaucratic challenges within the system are reported more broadly (Carey & Malbon, 2021). Yet, there is a specific lack of understanding within the NDIS on the experience of and risk of homelessness for people with disability (Frankish, 2018). Accessing the Disability Support Pension is another challenge for people with disability identified in the inquiry into homelessness in Victoria (Parliament of Victoria, 2021).

The ways in which sectors and service systems work together need to be addressed. Consistently, in international examples, collaboration and partnership are central to success in eliminating homelessness, and a core aspect of this is sharing information between sectors and agencies. Infrastructure to support this is required. Collaboration and partnership across sectors are demonstrated in South Australia through the South Australian Housing Authority and the five South Australian alliances set up (Government of South Australia, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d). This is in line with international examples, which demonstrate that partnerships are core to the elimination of homelessness. Evaluation of outcomes from SA is warranted and learning to inform scaling up of the model is required.

A major policy and practise gap identified in the environmental scan was the quality of data available as well as the sharing and transparency of data across systems. The policies and practises identified in this review highlight the limited application of policy and interventions to people with disability. This was identified by the Disability Housing Futures Working Group (Allen et al., 2016) which noted the poor quality and depth of data and policy on housing for people with disability. How this will be addressed through policy is unclear.

Data on social housing, private rental market as well as interaction and integration across systems is required. There is a need for better data on social housing which is disaggregated by disability (Pawson & Lilley, 2022). The authors also note the need for better quality data that reflects the true need for specialist homelessness services rather than provision which is the current case. Though people with disability are less likely to engage in the private rental market due to the range of structural and system factors, there is a need to understand the entry to and affordability of the private rental market for people with disabilities (Australian Government, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government 2020).

Drawing on the situation in Canada, Buchnea et al., (2021) highlighted the importance of data mining and the greater utility of data as part of a systems approach to homelessness prevention: “Currently, however, the uptake of tools and the data that is collected and shared within and across organisations, jurisdictions and systems is inconsistent. Similarly, we have yet to unlock the full potential of leveraging administrative data from the many systems that directly or indirectly relate to homelessness”.

The work of the Housing and Homelessness Data Working Group in assisting the implementation of a Housing and Homelessness Data Improvement Plan (Commonwealth Government, 2019) should be reviewed in light of the data and policy gaps identified in this environmental scan.

The environmental scan of policy and practise related to housing, homelessness and disability identified a wide breadth of documents, key points of intervention and further research. The findings of the scan are discussed within the context of the Australian housing and disability landscape.

Discussion

Barriers to services among people with disability who are homeless are multidirectional. Policy and practises in Australia frequently acknowledge the specialist needs of people with disability and adopt a generalist approach. This sees people with disability who are experiencing homelessness falling through the cracks of disability and homelessness services.

The issue of homelessness among people with disability is a significant one in the Australian context, and yet it is under-addressed. Current estimations indicate that there are approximately 100,000 people on the NDIS who have an unmet housing need (Wiesel, 2021). However, this figure is likely not indicative of the extent of the problem, as most people with disability are not eligible for the NDIS. Wiesel (2021) states that it is “time to review and expand the housing responsibilities of the NDIS beyond funding SDA [Specialist Disability Accommodation]”. Only a very limited number of people with very high support needs will be able to access specialty accommodation.

The lack of housing stock and availability is critical in the Australian context. The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme: Progress report (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019), which was published in March 2019, recommended (no.8) that housing stock and infrastructure should come under the purview of the Disability Reform Council for consideration. This was supported in principle by the Government, which reinforced the role of specialist disability accommodation in meeting the needs of people with disability with high support needs and highlighted the role of state and territory governments in meeting the needs of the remaining National Disability Insurance Scheme participants who do not receive Specialist Disability Accommodation. However, as noted, above non-NDIS participants were not included, which will exclude a substantial population of people with disability (Commonwealth of Australia, 2019).

The fact that people with disability who are homeless face barriers to accessing disability and housing support needs to be prioritised. The responsibility of the NDIS in the homelessness space is negligible and their obligations with housing are limited. However, positive housing circumstances are crucial to social participation and choice, and as Wiesel (2021) accurately notes, the success of the National Disability Insurance Scheme is directly linked to its ability to support people in achieving “adequate housing”. The support people with disability receive from the NDIS impact their living arrangements and have a key role in ensuring people with disability have access to the support they require to live an autonomous life of their choosing, with and where they choose to live.

The specialist disability accommodation model which is in use in Australia has a significant potential to result in people with disability being institutionalised. These concerns have been noted by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities concluding observations on the combined second and third periodic reports of Australia in 2019 (UN. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2019). The Committee also raised the issue of lack of sufficient supply of affordable and social housing which restricts people with disabilities’ ability to have choice and control over where they live. Younger people with disability in particular are at risk of being placed in unsuitable institutional settings such as nursing homes.

Capacity building, training and education among disability support planners is crucial to ensure people with disability who are homeless are supported appropriately. In particular, incorporating the principles of Housing First into current support systems has been identified as a priority to ensure best practise. Educating service providers within this system on these principles is an important site of intervention (Frankish, 2018). Reviews of interventions utilising a Housing First approach have identified this model as particularly effective (Baxter et al., 2019; Woodhall-Melnik & Dunn, 2016; Pleace 2018), although further research is required, particularly for diverse populations. International examples of settings where Housing First principles are enacted are valuable for insight, particularly in Canada and Europe. However, Housing First alone cannot be relied on to resolve homelessness. Housing First principles must be integrated into systems. Implementing Housing First does not necessarily mean that the incidence of homelessness will decrease. This is an important factor; simply instigating Housing First programmes is not necessarily going to be enough to address and redress homelessness in Australia more broadly, or specifically for people with disability.

Housing First is often added to existing crisis services, which is ineffective (Jones, Albanese and Revelli (2022). The success of Housing First requires multiple agency involvement and strong relationships between agencies, yet the programme itself cannot achieve this partnership and engagement in isolation, and overall change in how the system works and the vision and mission with regard to addressing homelessness needs to shift. This is described as moving away from Housing First as a “housing management tool” (Demos Helsinki, 2022). It is vital that successes with Housing First in Australia are not seen as the answer in isolation and that the ability to effect change with regard to homelessness (reducing entry in and supporting exit out of) that Housing First can achieve is not hampered by the lack of system-level support and change. Considering the drivers for homelessness are structural, system and individual levels as noted above, it is unsurprising that change in the overall system and structure is required.

As a rapid environmental scan of policy and prastice, with no systematic search of the academic literature, it is likely that not all data available on this issue is reported here. The methodology was informed by the limited timeframe of 3 months that was available from the Disability Royal Commission to inform their hearing on housing and homelessness. The effectiveness of interventions in general and specifically in relation to people with disability was difficult to ascertain from the documents reviewed. In addition, though the data extraction template worked well for policy documents, it was more difficult to apply to other working documents such as statements of assurances and reports of performance indicators.

The scan has highlighted the ways in which people with disability are excluded from current disability and homelessness policies and illustrated ways in which these policies can be amended to instigate structural change that incorporates them. There is a need to increase the visibility of people with disability in policy and practise by recognising people with disability as a priority cohort. As part of this, it is essential that the diversity of disability and the intersectional identities of people with disability are included. Embedding the human right to housing within national legislation is one way to enforce structural change. Suggestions for further research include a larger systematic review of the academic literature related to people with disability and their experiences of homelessness, as well as further empirical research into the area.