91����

There is very little research in Australia or internationally that examines the long-term impact on people’s housing and overall wellbeing after they leave homelessness services. This study addresses that gap. A strength of the study is that it looks at outcomes across three homelessness services, where most studies examine only one program at a time. Although this research does not examine all people who accessed Mission Australia services in Cairns, it provides valuable insights for the broader homelessness sector to inform service design, policy and system reform.

The research investigated four questions:

1. What have been the longer-term housing outcomes and changes in well-being of people after exiting into stable housing from Mission Australia's homelessness services in Cairns?

Thirteen of the 14 people interviewed had sustained long-term independent housing, although affordability and suitability of their housing remained concerns for some.

Stable housing produced meaningful improvements in health, independence, and quality of life. For some people, this was expressed through growing capacity to pursue broader life changes such as exploring employment and volunteering opportunities.

Housing stability also enabled continued expression of culture for some First Nations interviewees.
 

2. What have been the housing journeys of people since exit?

Engagement with Mission Australia services marked a significant turning point in participants’ housing journeys.

Most maintained stable independent housing after exit, while some moved into properties that better met their support needs. One interviewee experienced a tenancy breakdown but later re-engaged with Douglas House, highlighting the importance of accessible re-engagement pathways.

Interviewees expressed a growing sense of comfort and belonging but acknowledged that it took time to get used to living in a home environment.
 

3. What factors have supported and/or hindered peoples' housing outcomes?

Trusting staff relationships, holistic case management, cross service collaboration, and cultural safety played a key role in supporting positive housing outcomes.

At the program level, limited opportunities to build social boundaries, abrupt transitions between programs, and an absence of structured post-exit support undermined tenancy sustainment and wellbeing.

System-level barriers included shortages of affordable and appropriate housing, restrictive public housing settings, and limited culturally responsive options for First Nations people.
 

4. What improvements to service design and delivery could be made that support improved long-term housing outcomes?

The research identifies seven recommendations across three thematic areas including opportunities to strengthen Mission Australia’s service design and delivery across its homelessness services delivered in Cairns, advocacy to improve access to housing, and improvements to better understand people’s outcomes.

Post-exit tenancy sustainment outreach and integrated therapeutic supports are consistently identified as improvements to service design and delivery. Increased cultural safety training is also advised to strengthen service delivery.

There are also opportunities to improve data collection at program exit and to strengthen longitudinal evidence on service use and housing pathways.

The project used a mixed-methods approach:

1. Baseline analysis: review of established program results and data that measure and capture the immediate outcomes and impacts of each of the services.
2. Analysis of longer-term housing outcomes and journeys: interviews with people who had engaged in each of Mission Australia's services in Cairns to understand their post-service housing journeys and outcomes; focus groups with case workers.

91���� researchers conducted 14 interviews with people who had previously been engaged in one or more of the three services.

With 75% of people across the services identifying as First Nations, interviews were led by 91����’s Principal First Nations Adviser and used a truth telling approach to facilitate open, deep and constructive engagement. In addition, 91���� researchers conducted two focus groups with 6 staff across the three services.

This research received ethics approval from Swinburne's Human Research Ethics Committee - HC8884.