Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150

https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-023-00385-8

REVIEW

Housing, Homelessness and Disability: the Commodification of a Core

Human Right and Breach of This Right for People with Disability
Mary‑Ann O’Donovan1,2 · Erin Louise Whittle1

Accepted: 9 December 2023 / Published online: 24 January 2024

© The Author(s) 2024

Abstract
Objectives Access to housing is a recognised human right across international conventions. Yet this right is rarely legislated
for within individual countries. In parallel, housing has increasingly become a much sought-after commodity, one in which the
accumulation of multiple properties or “homes” is a way of future-proofing for retirement. Large inequities exist across society
in terms of who has a home, those who have multiple homes and those who are at risk of homelessness or are homeless. People
with disability are particularly more likely to be (over-)represented in the latter group.
Methods An environmental scan of contemporary policy, practise and developments on homelessness and disability in
Australia sought to examine the current government response to structural and systematic issues which lead to homelessness
and neglect for people with disability. A comparison between international practise and policy is made, with a particular
focus on examples of effective rights-based interventions, where they exist.
Results Ninety-six documents of varying types were included in the environmental scan.
Conclusions People with disability are frequently excluded from current disability and homelessness policy. Policies can and
should be amended to instigate structural change which incorporates them. Embedding the human right to housing within
national legislation is one way to enforce structural change.

Keywords Homelessness · Housing · Disability · Risk · Policy intervention · Prevention · Environmental scan

Housing is a human right. Not just bricks and mortar hous-
ing 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 peo-
ple 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
* Mary‑Ann O’Donovan
mary-ann.odonovan@sydney.edu.au
1
Centre for Disability Studies, Research Affiliate
of the University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
2
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin,
Dublin, Ireland
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 dwell-
ing 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.

Vol.:(0123456789)
142
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 hous-
ing 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 Disabil-
ity Support Pension (DSP) experience affordability stress.
The level of income inadequacy experienced by people with
disability is much greater, with approximately 3 in 10 peo-
ple 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 com-
plex and experienced to different degrees by different popula-
tion groups. Diversity within the population of people who
are homeless is beginning to be recognised, with acknowl-
edgement 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 employ-
ment 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, intellec-
tual 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 popula-
tion is an important factor for policy and practise to recog-
nise. 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 hous-
ing 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.
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
Some people with disability, notably people with intel-
lectual disability and psychosocial disability, have been
exposed to high levels of institutionalisation. Institutional or
congregate arrangements persist for many people with intel-
lectual 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 pri-
vate rental market being prohibitive for many people with
life-long disabilities with the reliance on accessible, afford-
able social housing heightened (O’Donovan et al., 2021).
Within Australia, the National Disability Insurance
Scheme (NDIS) is an important contextual factor to con-
sider. National Disability Insurance Scheme was estab-
lished 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 dis-
ability and limited understanding of how policy and prac-
tise 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-dis-
abled 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 ini-
tiatives (O’Donovan et al., 2021). Home modifications were
also acknowledged as supporting a transition to greater inde-
pendence. 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 infor-
mal supports at an interpersonal level as important enablers of
transition (O’Donovan et al., 2021).
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
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 finan-
cial 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 dis-
abilities to develop and maintain individualised supported
living arrangements.
In a small mixed methods study of experiences of home-
lessness 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 mar-
ket. Low levels of social housing were available, and this
resulted in people returning to residential services. For peo-
ple 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 lead-
ing 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 environ-
mental scan (Charlton et al., 2021). For the purposes of this
143
scan, the exact method was guided by the research ques-
tions, 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.
144
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 Sup-
plementary 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 Aus-
tralia. 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 Dec-
laration 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 commit-
ments at the state level outlined in the bilateral agreement
between State and Commonwealth governments. Six prior-
ity 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 peo-
ple. 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 (Tas-
mania, Queensland, New South Wales, Australian State Ter-
ritory) 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
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
disability. It also reaffirms that housing for people with disabil-
ity 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 Representa-
tives 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 homeless-
ness 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 dis-
cussion 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 major-
ity of people with disability who are not eligible for NDIS
must not be forgotten. This was highlighted in the Disabil-
ity 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 opportu-
nities for family members and charitable organisations, and
shared equity home ownership.”
The Joint Standing Committee on the National Disabil-
ity Insurance Scheme Progress Report (Commonwealth of
Australia, 2019) recommends action from the Council of
Australian Government Disability Reform Council in rela-
tion 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 Com-
mittee 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
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
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 Govern-
ment 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 sys-
tems, 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 con-
tinued 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 num-
ber 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 collabora-
tion. 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.
145
Examples in Australia include the Together Home and
Supported Transition and Engagement Program (STEP).
However, though principles of Housing First are incorpo-
rated into these programmes, neither are long-term pro-
grammes, and both require service engagement (New South
Wales Audit Office, 2021). The Common Ground interven-
tion was identified as another model which uses the prin-
ciples 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 inad-
equate supply of housing stock in Australia is a substan-
tial 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) pro-
gramme assists people living in the Department of Com-
munities 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 fam-
ily 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 ser-
vices 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.
146
Point-of-delivery approaches, such as wraparound ser-
vices, are in practise in Australia. The Common Ground pro-
gramme is an example of a wraparound service currently
operating in Sydney, New South Wales. This 6-storey resi-
dential space, with inbuilt support services through Camp-
erdown Support Services (CSS) prioritises people who have
experienced long-term homelessness. Individual case man-
agement and interdisciplinary support across health, social,
and welfare are provided. Specific outcome data is not pro-
vided 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 sys-
tems responses at both government and community levels,
data management and sharing across systems, co-ordinated
prevention and housing first strategies and a robust evalua-
tion 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 iden-
tified. A siloed approach and response to homelessness contin-
ues 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 access-
ing 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
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
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 suc-
cess in eliminating homelessness, and a core aspect of this
is sharing information between sectors and agencies. Infra-
structure to support this is required. Collaboration and part-
nership 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 scal-
ing up of the model is required.
A major policy and practise gap identified in the environ-
mental 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 dis-
ability. This was identified by the Disability Housing Futures
Working Group (Allen et al., 2016) which noted the poor qual-
ity 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 inter-
action 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 home-
lessness prevention: “Currently, however, the uptake of tools
and the data that is collected and shared within and across
organisations, jurisdictions and systems is inconsistent. Sim-
ilarly, 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 Work-
ing 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.
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
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 Aus-
tralia 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. Wie-
sel (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 (Com-
monwealth of Australia, 2019), which was published in March
2019, recommended (no.8) that housing stock and infrastruc-
ture 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 disabil-
ity accommodation in meeting the needs of people with dis-
ability with high support needs and highlighted the role of state
and territory governments in meeting the needs of the remain-
ing 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 circum-
stances 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 abil-
ity to support people in achieving “adequate housing”. The
147
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 con-
cerns have been noted by the United Nations Committee on
the Rights of Persons with Disabilities concluding observa-
tions 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 hous-
ing 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 man-
agement tool” (Demos Helsinki, 2022). It is vital that suc-
cesses 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
148
by the lack of system-level support and change. Consid-
ering 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 meth-
odology 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 effec-
tiveness 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 dif-
ficult 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 homeless-
ness 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.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary
material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s41252-​023-​00385-8.
Author Contribution Mary-Ann O’Donovan: conceptualisation, meth-
odology, investigation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, super-
vision, project administration, and funding acquisition. Erin Louise
Whittle: methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing—
original draft, review, and editing.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and
its Member Institutions
Declarations
Competing Interests The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Allen, M., Hamilton, C., Wiesel, I., Alves, T., Murray, G., Finch, K.,
Myers, M., & Donald, O., (2016). Disability Housing Futures
Working Group. National affordable housing consortium.
Retrieved on 19th December 2023 from https://​www.​aph.​gov.​au/​
Docum​entSt​ore.​ashx?​id=​e623e​80c-​6061-​467f-​aee6-​07683​80d5b​
e6&​subId=​410300
Assembly, U. N. G. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. UN
General Assembly, 302(2), 14–25.
Audit Office of New South Wales. (2021). Responses to homelessness
report. Retrieved on 19th December 2023 from https://w ​ ww.a​ udit.​
nsw.​gov.​au/​our-​work/​repor​ts/​respo​nses-​to-​homel​essne​ss
Australian Government. (2013b). National disability insurance scheme
act 2013 (the act). Federal Register of Legislation. Retrieved on
19th December 2023 from https://​www.​legis​lation.​gov.​au/​Detai​
ls/​C2013​A00020
Australian Government. (2013a). National disability insurance scheme
(supports for participants) rules 2013. Retrieved on 19th Decem-
ber 2023 from https://​www.​legis​lation.​gov.​au/​Detai​ls/​C2013​
A00020
Australian Government. (2020). People with disability in Australia.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved on 19th
December 2023 from https://​www.​aihw.​gov.​au/​repor​ts/​disab​ility/​
people-​with-​disab​ility-​in-​austr​alia/​conte​nts/​summa​ry
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021). Specialist homeless-
ness services annual report 2020–21. Retrieved on 19th Decem-
ber 2023 from https://​www.​aihw.​gov.​au/​repor ​ts/​homel​essne​ss-​
servi​ces/​speci​alist-​homel​essne​ss-​servi​ces-​annual-​report/​conte​
nts/​clien​ts-​servi​ces-​and-​outco​mes
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). Homelessness and
homelessness services. Retrieved on 19th December 2023 from
https://​www.​aihw.​gov.​au/​repor ​ts/​austr​alias-​welfa​re/​homel​essne​
ss-​and-​homel​essne​ss-​servi​ces
Baxter, A. J., Tweed, E. J., Katikireddi, S. V., & Thomson, H. (2019).
Effects of housing first approaches on health and well-being of
adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: Systematic
review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Journal
of Epidemiology and Community Health, 73(5), 379–387. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1136/​jech-​2018-​210981
Beer, A., Batterham, D., Baker, E., & Mallett, S. (2011). Non-psychi-
atric disability and homelessness: Building an evidence base for
better policy. Parity, 24(9), 29–30. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3316/​infor​
mit.​67711​74709​46874
Beer, A., Daniel, L., Baker, E., & Lester, L. (2020). The shifting risk
of homelessness among persons with a disability: Insights from
a national policy intervention. International Journal of Environ-
mental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6512. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​3390/​ijerp​h1718​6512
Brown, M., & McCann, E. (2021). Homelessness and people with
intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of the international
research evidence. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities, 34(2), 390–401. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jar.​12815
Buchnea, A., Legate, J., McKitterick. M.-J., & Morton, E., (2021). The
state of systems approaches to preventing and ending homeless-
ness in Canada. Canadian Observatory on Homelessness Press.
Retrieved on 19th December 2023 from https://​www.​homel​
esshub.​ca/​resou​rce/​state-​syste​ms-​appro​aches-​preve​nting-​and-​
ending-​homel​essne​ss-​canada
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
Bullen, J., Whittaker, E., Schollar-Root, O., Burns, L., & Zmudzki, F.
(2016). In-depth evaluation of camperdown common ground: Per-
manent housing for vulnerable long-term homeless people (SPRC
Report 03/16). Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW
Retrieved on 19th December 2023 from Australia. https://​www.​
arts.​unsw.​edu.​au/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​docum​ents/​InDep​th_​Evalu​
ation_​of_​Campe​rdown_​Common_​Ground_​FINAL.​pdf
Carey, G., & Malbon, E. (2021). Implementation challenges in the
NDIS. The National Disability Insurance Scheme, 145–160.
Retrieved on 19th December 2023 from https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-​981-​16-​2244-1_8
Charlton, P., Doucet, S., Azar, R., Nagel, D. A., Boulos, L., Luke, A.,
Mears, K., Kelly, K. J., & Montelpare, W. J. (2019). The use of
the environmental scan in health services delivery research: A
scoping review protocol. BMJ Open, 9(9). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 136/​
bmjop​en-​2019-​029805
Charlton, P., Kean, T., Liu, R. H., Nagel, D. A., Azar, R., Doucet, S.,
Luke, A., Montelpare, W., Mears, K., & Boulos, L. (2021). Use
of environmental scans in health services delivery research: A
scoping review. BMJ Open, 11(11). https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 136/b​ mjop​
en-​2021-​050284
Committee on Community Services. (2020). Final report inquiry into
the protocol for homeless people in public places. Retrieved on
19th December 2023 from https://​www.​parli​ament.​nsw.​gov.​au/​
commi​ttees/​inqui​ries/​Pages/​inqui​ry-​detai​ls.​aspx?​pk=​2568
Commonwealth Government. (2019). Housing and homelessness data
improvement plan 2019 – 2023. Retrieved on 19 December 2023
from https://federalfinancialrelations.gov.au/sites/federalfinan-
cialrelations.gov.au/files/2021-07/NHHA_DIP_Schedule_E.docx
Commonwealth of Australia. (2019). Joint Standing Committee on the
National Disability Insurance Scheme Progress Report. Retrieved
on 19 December 2023 from https://​www.​aph.​gov.​au/​parli​ament​ary_​
busin​ess/​commi​ttees/​joint/​natio​nal_​disab​ility_​insur​ance_​scheme
Council of Australian Governments. (2018). National Affordable Hous-
ing Agreement. Retrieved from https://​www.​aph.​gov.​au/​Docum​
entSt​ore.​ashx?​id=​5ddc6​3f0-​5908-​4216-​835a-​e69f6​23593​de&​
subId=​562249
Demos Helsinki. (2022). A new systems perspective to ending homeless-
ness Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://​demos​helsi​nki.​fi/​
wp-​conte​nt/​uploa​ds/​2022/​05/​HF-​Syste​ms-​Change-​Report.​pdf
Durbin, A., Isaacs, B., Mauer-Vakil, D., Connelly, J., Steer, L., Roy,
S., & Stergiopoulos, V. (2018). Intellectual disability and home-
lessness: A synthesis of the literature and discussion of how sup-
portive housing can support wellness for people with intellectual
disability. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, 5, 125–131.
Frankish, R. (2018). Housing first and the NDIS: Learnings and service
recommendations to support people with a disability experiencing
homelessness. Parity, 31(8), 11–13.
Gaetz, S., Donaldson, J., Richter, T., & Gulliver, T. (2013). The state of
homelessness in Canada 2013. Canadian Homelessness Research
Network Press. www.homelesshub.ca.
Gaetz, S., & Dej, E. (2017). A new direction: A framework for home-
lessness prevention.Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homeless-
ness Press. www.​homel​esshub.​ca
Jones, S., Albanese, F., & Revelli, M. (2022). Achieving a new systems
perspective to ending homelessness through housing first. Housing
First Europe. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://​housi​
ngfir​steur​ope.​eu/​publi​cation/​publi​cation-​achie​ving-a-​new-​syste​
ms-​persp​ective-​to-​ending-​homel​essne​ss-​throu​gh-​housi​ng-​first-
a-​policy-​and-​pract​ice-​guide/
McCarron, M., Lombard-Vance, R., Murphy, E., O’Donovan, M.A.,
Webb, N., Sheaf, G., McCallion, P., Stancliffe, R., Normand, C.,
Smith, V. and May, P. (2018). Quality of life outcomes and costs
associated with moving from congregated settings to community
living arrangements for people with intellectual disability: An
evidence review. Dublin: Health Research Board, Retrieved on 19
149
December 2023 from https://​www.​hrb.​ie/​filea​dmin/​publi​catio​ns_​
files/Q
​ ualit​ y-o​ f-l​ ife__o​ utcom
​ es_a​ nd_c​ osts_l​ iving_a​ rrang​ ement​ s_​
for_​people_​with_​an_​intel​lectu​al_​disab​ility_​2018.​pdf
Mission Australia. (2021a). Inquiry into housing affordability and sup-
ply. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://w ​ ww.m ​ issio​ naus​
tralia.​com.​au/​publi​catio​ns/​submi​ssions-​and-​repor​ts/​housi​ng-​and-​
homel​essne​ss?​limit=​20&​limit​start=​20
Mission Australia. (2021b). NSW responses to homelessness audit
2021. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://​www.​missi​
onaus​tralia.​com.​au/​publi​catio​ns/​submi​ssions-​and-​repor​ts/​housi​
ng-​and-​homel​essne​ss?​limit=​20&​limit​start=​20
Mission Australia. (2021c). Options to improve access to existing and
alternate accommodation to address the social housing shortage
2021. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://​www.​missi​
onaus​tralia.​com.​au/​publi​catio​ns/​submi​ssions-​and-​repor​ts/​housi​
ng-​and-​homel​essne​ss
Mission Australia. (2021d). Scope of the draft Tasmanian planning
policies submission. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from
https://​www.​missi​onaus​tralia.​com.​au/​publi​catio​ns/​submi​ssions-​
and-​repor​ts/​housi​ng-​and-​homel​essne​ss?​limit=​20&​limit​start=​20
Mission Australia. (2022). Camperdown support services (CSS) –
common ground Sydney Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from
https://​www.​missi​onaus​tralia.​com.​au/​publi​catio​ns/​submi​ssions-​
and-​repor​ts/​housi​ng-​and-​homel​essne​ss?​limit=​20&​limit​start=​20
Mission Australia. (2022). Submission 17 – mental health Australia
– housing and homelessness agreement review – commissioned
study. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://​www.​missi​
onaus​tralia.​com.​au/​publi​catio​ns/​submi​ssions-​and-​repor​ts/​housi​
ng-​and-​homel​essne​ss?​limit=​20&​limit​start=​20
NSW Government. (2020). National housing and homelessness agree-
ment: New South Wales government statement of assurance 2020–
21. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://w ​ ww.d​ ss.g​ ov.a​ u/​
housi​ng-​suppo​rt-​progr​ams-​servi​ces-​homel​essne​ss/​natio​nal-​housi​
ng-​and-​homel​essne​ss-​agree​ment
O’Donovan, M., Demetriou, E., Whittle, E., Duke, Z., Aitken, T., &
Guastella, A. (2021). Home and living options for people with dis-
abilities: A systematic review and environmental scan of strategies
to support transition from group homes and congregate care, and
those which prevent movement to congregate settings. Sydney:
Centre for Disability Studies/The University of Sydney. Retrieved
on 19 December 2023 from https://​www.​sydney.​edu.​au/​conte​nt/​
dam/​corpo​rate/​docum​ents/​brain-​and-​mind-​centre/​ndia_​report_​
final_​28jun​e2021-​cover-​and-​discl​aimer.​docx
O’Donovan, M. A., Lynch, E., Odonnell, L., & Kelly, K. (2021). The
experience and risk of homelessness for people with intellectual
disabilities and/or autism and their families. In Journal Of Applied
Research In Intellectual Disabilities, 34(5), 1268–1269.
Pappas, C., & Williams, I. (2011). Grey literature: Its emerging impor-
tance. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 11(3), 228–234. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15323​269.​2011.​587100
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. (2021). Final report
inquiry into homelessness in Australia. Retrieved from Canberra,
Australia. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://​www.​
aph.​gov.​au/​Parli​ament​ary_​Busin​ess/​Commi​ttees/​House/​Social_​
Policy_​and_​Legal_​Affai​rs/​Homel​essne​ssinA​ustra​lia
Parliament of Victoria. (2021). Inquiry into homelessness in Victoria
final report. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from https://​new.​
parli​ament.​vic.​gov.​au/​get-​invol​ved/​inqui​ries/​inqui​ry-​into-​homel​
essne​ss-​in-​victo​ria/
Pawson, H., & Lilley, D. (2022). Managing access to social housing
in Australia: Unpacking policy frameworks and service provision
outcomes. CFRC working paper. Sydney: UNSW City Futures
Research Centre.
Pleace, N. (2018). Using housing first in integrated homelessness strat-
egies: A review of the evidence. The University of York. Retrieved
19 December 2023 from https://​eprin​ts.​white​rose.​ac.​uk/​127547/
150
Productivity Commission, Australian Government. (2019). Review of
the national disability agreement, productivity commission, study
report. Retrieved 19 December 2023 from https://w ​ ww.p​ c.g​ ov.a​ u/​
inqui​ries/​compl​eted/​disab​ility-​agree​ment/​report
Spinney, A., Beer, A., MacKenzie, D., McNelis, S., Meltzer, A., Muir,
K., Peters, A., and Valentine, K. (2020) Ending homelessness in
Australia: A redesigned homelessness service system, AHURI
Final Report No. 347, Australian Housing and Urban Research
Institute Limited, Melbourne, https://​www.​ahuri.​edu.​au/​resea​rch/​
final-​repor​ts/​347, https://​doi.​org/​10.​18408/​ahuri​51190​01
Thoresen, S., O’Brien, P., O’Donovan, M.-A., Walter, B., Mueller, A.,
Westermann, G., Whittle, E., & Buchanan, A. (2022). Accom-
modating adults with intellectual disabilities and high support
needs in individual supported living arrangements. AHURI Final
Report, (380). https://​doi.​org/​10.​18408/​ahuri​81241​01
UN. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (22nd sess.
: 2019 : Geneva). (2019). Concluding observations on the com-
bined 2nd and 3rd periodic reports of Australia: Committee on
the rights of persons with disabilities. Geneva, UN. https://​digit​
allib​rary.​un.​org/​record/​38486​18
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities. Treaty Series, 2515, 3. https://​www.​ohchr.​org/​en/​
Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders (2024) 8:141–150
instr​uments-​mecha​nisms/​instr​uments/​conve​ntion-​r ights-​perso​
ns-​disab​iliti​es
VicHealth. (2012). Disability and health inequities in Australia
research summary. Retrieved on 19 December 2023 from www.​
viche​alth.​vic.​gov.​au/​sites/​defau​lt/​files/​VH_​Disab​ility-​Summa​
ry_​web.​pdf
Wiesel, I. (2021). Housing and the national disability insurance
scheme. The national disability insurance scheme, 205–223.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​16-​2244-1_​11
Wiesel, I., & Bigby, C. (2015). Movement on shifting sands: Dein-
stitutionalisation and people with intellectual disability in Aus-
tralia, 1974–2014. Urban Policy and Research, 33(2), 178–194.
Woodhall-Melnik, J. R., & Dunn, J. R. (2016). A systematic review
of outcomes associated with participation in housing first pro-
grams. Housing Studies, 31(3), 287–304. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
1080/​02673​037.​2015.​10808​16
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.