Transferred but not transformed: Public housing handovers fall short on delivering new homes

AHURI’s latest report investigates the long-term impacts of transferring public housing dwellings to community housing providers and draws lessons to inform more effective strategies.

“Public housing transfers have been a prominent strategy for growing the CHP sector for decades,” said research lead and senior research fellow at UNSW Sydney, Dr Edgar Liu.

Researchers found that between 2015 and 2024, the number of dwellings managed by CHPs nearly doubled, reaching 129,940 properties – or 29% of the country’s social housing.

The scale of transfers during this period varied widely across jurisdictions, from 15,162 public housing properties transferred to CHPs in New South Wales, to no transfers in the Australian Capital Territory.

“The goal of transfer programs was to improve economic efficiency, expand the community housing sector and enhance tenant outcomes,” Dr Liu said.

Many of these goals had been achieved – a national survey of 14 CHPs showed providers becoming more professionalised, with more strategic asset management, specialised staff and boards, and scaled procurement.

Community housing tenants also reported better experiences and dwelling conditions than public housing tenants.

However, the potential for CHPs to expand social housing stock remained largely unrealised.

“The idea was CHPs could use the value of transferred housing and associated rental income to underpin additional debt-funded investment in new homes,” Dr Liu said.

 

“However, the impact on growth has been very modest, as some programs transferred liabilities rather than prime assets.”

Transfer arrangements had also been a barrier – most were long-term management transfers of 20-plus years. In recent times only Victoria engaged in ownership transfers at any scale.

While long-term management transfers increased CHPs’ rental income and allowed for maintenance planning, lack of ownership constrained providers’ ability to raise debt to invest in upgrades or new developments.

“Some transfer programs, like Renewing our Streets and Suburbs in South Australia, allowed flexibility in contract terms, and CHPs could propose redevelopment plans and retain additional stock produced,” Dr Liu said.

“This often involved demolishing older homes and replacing them with townhouses.”
 

Financial impact of transfers on providers

Newer transfer programs often expect CHPs to expand tenant and community services – including homelessness programs and temporary accommodation – without additional funding.

Evidence cited in the study suggested the quality of properties being transferred to CHP management had worsened over time.

“Of the 14 CHPs surveyed, 12 said more than half of homes in the most recent transfer were in poor or very poor condition,” Dr Liu said.

Three-fifths of CHPs surveyed stated the condition of recently transferred housing was significantly different to previous programs, and 61% felt governments had been motivated by a desire to ‘offload the most problematic stock’.

For many CHPs, financial impacts from poor quality transfers and greater service demands took years to stabilise or remained, reducing their ability to contribute new social housing.

“Governments should consider transfer terms and conditions that facilitate sectoral growth, allow CHPs to add housing stock, and allow more autonomy,” Dr Liu said.

 

“This research identifies policy actions that could facilitate that, including more ownership transfers, greater flexibility on transfer terms, and additional resourcing to fund expanded services.”

The research was undertaken for AHURI by researchers from University of New South Wales, and RMIT University.