Governance

Homelessness NSW administered High Needs Funding on behalf of Homes NSW. Peak body administration, delivered through a multidisciplinary, non-hierarchical High Needs Panel supported by a dedicated Homelessness NSW secretariat function, was the standout strength of the program’s governance and should be retained largely unchanged in any future model.

Data collection and reporting

Data collection and reporting arrangements served financial accountability reasonably well. However, data on what High Needs Funding achieved for clients, and how it interacted with the broader health and service system, was not gathered or synthesised in a way that could inform decision-making or demonstrate the program’s value.

Equity of access

Access to High Needs Funding was generally equitable, although the cultural appropriateness of the application process for First Nations clients was a gap. Where equity concerns arose, they reflected a small number of interacting factors rather than deliberate bias: application complexity, organisational capability, regional and remote service availability, and the structural position of subcontracted support providers.

Client outcomes

High Needs Funding was highly effective in responding to individual client needs and delivering positive outcomes. There was near-unanimous agreement across every stakeholder group that the funding’s flexibility, speed and person-centredness achieved outcomes that would not have been possible through any other mechanism.

System impacts

At a system level, High Needs Funding acted as a diagnostic lens, revealing real gaps in mental health, disability, aged care and housing systems. However, in practice it worked by bridging these gaps rather than resolving them.

The evaluation makes 14 recommendations.

Design principles a future model should retain include peak body administration delivered through a multidisciplinary assessment panel; a discretionary, non-prescriptive, person-centred nature of brokerage; budgets sized to actual client need rather than a fixed per-client amount; and co-design between government, the peak body and the sector.

Improvements needed include a separate, adequately resourced funding stream for case management; a lightweight, structurally embedded data collection and outcomes framework that closes the reporting loop; proactive, ongoing support and training for applicants; and genuine, iterative co-design, including with First Nations communities and organisations.

In terms of structure and governance, releasing funding to either Specialist Homelessness Services (SHSs) or Community Housing Providers (CHPs) both have advantages and draw backs. When CHPs hold the funds, financial accountability is tied to tenancy outcomes, but this sits uneasily with a Housing First model that calls for housing and support to stay separate. Paying SHSs directly would remove that friction but would also reduce tenancy accountability. This choice should be resolved as part of the broader Housing First systems design process for NSW.