Key findings

For adult female clients of specialist homelessness services (SHS) experiencing family and domestic violence (FDV) and returning to homelessness in 2020–21:

  • over 1 in 3 experienced both a current mental health issue and problematic drug and/or alcohol use, around double that of the FDV non-returning to homelessness cohort 
  • they were 2.4 times as likely to need family planning support and pregnancy assistance, compared with the FDV non-returning to homelessness cohort. 
  • those who exited public or community housing were 15–16% more likely to receive SHS support in the future. 

Introduction

In many countries, a large share of the homeless population is homeless for a short period before transitioning to a more stable housing solution, however, there is a smaller share of the population that experiences longer or multiple episodes of homelessness and requires higher support needs (OECD 2020).

Clients of specialist homelessness services (SHS) returning to homelessness are categorised under repeat homelessness. Return to homelessness occurs when people who were experiencing homelessness achieved housing and then returned to homelessness.

SHS clients returning to homelessness has decreased over time, from 15,900 clients in 2018–19 to 14,900 in 2022–23 (AIHW 2024a). Of all SHS clients returning to homelessness in 2022–23, over half (53%) were women and children affected by family and domestic violence (AIHW 2024a). More contextual information about these clients can be found in Overview of SHS client groups – see ‘Clients experiencing repeat homelessness’.

This report focuses on adult female SHS clients experiencing family and domestic violence (FDV) and returning to homelessness in 2020–21. FDV is the main reason women and children leave their homes in Australia (AHURI 2021). For many, leaving the home (either temporarily or permanently) can result in housing insecurity and/or homelessness due to a lack of housing options or barriers in accessing resources and support (AIHW 2024b).

It is important to note that the findings are restricted to adult female clients experiencing FDV who received support from a SHS agency. Housing situation was only assessed when clients were receiving support. The data does not describe all people who experienced a return to homelessness pattern, nor the housing situation of SHS clients when they were not receiving SHS support.

Defining the cohorts 

In this report, the base cohort includes women aged 18 and over who at any time during 2020–21 received SHS support, had at least one month of homelessness and:

  • nominated FDV as a reason for seeking services, or
  • were assessed by SHS agency workers as needing FDV services, or
  • were provided or referred to FDV services.

Longitudinal analyses have been undertaken for the 2020–21 FDV return to homelessness (FDV RHL cohort). This cohort is defined here as clients in the base cohort who:

  • had at least one month of homelessness during July 2020 to June 2021, and
  • experienced a homeless-housed-homeless pattern in any time during the 24-months period prior to the last month experiencing homelessness in 2020–21. 

A comparison cohort (non-return to homelessness) (FDV non-RHL cohort) was created, comprising clients in the base cohort who:

  • had at least one month of homelessness during July 2020 to June 2021, and
  • had not experienced a homeless-housed-homeless pattern during the 24-months period prior to the last month experiencing homelessness in 2020–21. 

Longitudinal SHS data for the period 2016–23 were used to examine characteristics and patterns of SHS support (all support, not limited to FDV services) among the 2020–21 FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL cohorts (Figure Return.1). The defining study period for these cohorts is the 24 months prior to the last support for each client between July 2020 and June 2021. The retrospective study period is the 24 months before the start of each client’s 24 month defining study period, and the prospective study period is the 24 months after the end of each client’s 24 month defining study period. See Introduction to the SHS longitudinal data for details on the longitudinal analyses undertaken. 

There are methodological differences in the scope of FDV clients returning to homelessness reported in this article, compared to the scope used for reporting national indicators (see Technical notes).

Figure Return.1: FDV returning to homelessness cohort 2020–21, longitudinal analysis overview

The infographic shows how the longitudinal analysis for female clients experiencing FDV and returning to homelessness in 2020–21 are structured and how the cohort and study periods are defined. For this analysis, the defining study period for these cohorts is the 24 months prior to the last support for each client between July 2020 and June 2021. The retrospective study period is the 24 months before the start of each client’s 24 month defining study period, and the prospective study period is the 24 months after the end of each client’s 24 month defining study period. The analysis for these cohort clients included, a description of the cohort and key characteristics/vulnerabilities, SHS services/assistance needed and service provision status for clients experiencing FDV and returning to homelessness, a comparison between the FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL cohorts, FDV RHL cohort client characteristics associated with SHS support in the past and future.

How the FDV return to homelessness cohort compares with the FDV non-return to homelessness cohort

Key characteristics

In 2020–21, among the 21,400 women in the FDV cohort (aged 18 and over and who had at least one month of homelessness), almost 1 in 5 (18%, or 3,900) clients were in the FDV RHL cohort and over 4 in 5 (82%, or 17,400) clients were in the FDV non-RHL cohort (Figure Return.1, Table FDVRHL2021.1).

The FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL cohorts had some similar characteristics (Figure Return.2, Table FDVRHL2021.1):

  • Around 3 in 5 were under 35 years old (61% of the FDV RHL cohort compared with 55% of the FDV non-RHL cohort)
  • The majority were unemployed or not in the labour force at some point during the 24-month defining period (99% compared with 91%).

During the 24-month defining period, a higher proportion of the FDV RHL cohort (Figure Return.2, Table FDVRHL2021.1, Table FDVRHL2021.2):

  • had 3 or more SHS support periods (90% compared with 46% of FDV non-RHL cohort)
  • received short-term accommodation (76% compared with 53%)
  • received medium-term accommodation (16% compared with 9.9%)
  • ended a support period in public or community housing after having started that support period in a different housing situation (27% compared with 13%).

Clients who experience FDV may also experience other vulnerabilities or specific demographic characteristics. During the defining period, a higher proportion of the FDV RHL cohort (Figure Return.2, Table FDVRHL2021.1, Table FDVRHL2021.2):

  • had a current mental health issue (77% compared with 57%)
  • had problematic drug and/or alcohol use (39% compared with 20%)
  • had both a current mental health issue and problematic drug and/or alcohol use (35% compared with 17%)
  • presented with child(ren) (49% compared with 38%)
  • were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander clients (46% compared with 32%).

Figure Return.2: FDV returning and FDV non-returning to homelessness cohort 2020–21, client key characteristics

This interactive bar chart shows a comparison between the FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL cohorts, in terms of key characteristics and across all study periods (defining, retrospective and prospective). Radio buttons allow selection for the data to be displayed as a number or percentage and allows selection for data in the three distinct study periods. For Australia, FDV RHL clients were more likely to be aged 18–24 (FDV RHL 28% compared with 21% FDV non-RHL clients), have had drug/alcohol issues (39% compared with 20%) and had mental health issues (77% compared with 57%). They had three or more SHS support periods (90% compared with 46%) and were more likely to be Aboriginal and/or Tores Strait Islander (46% compared with 32%).

Notes: 

  1. Counts of clients with values of No include cases where the variable is not stated or unknown.
  2.  Clients are counted as Indigenous or overseas-born if they are classified as such in any support period in the longitudinal data.
  3. Percentages are calculated using total clients within the cohort as the denominator (FDVRHL cohort: 3,948, FDV non-RHL cohort: 17,448). For the retrospective and prospective study periods the percentages may not add to 100 as not all cohort clients are included in these periods. 
  4. Received accommodation indicates that the client was provided either short-term or emergency accommodation, medium term/transitional housing, or long-term housing. 
  5. Short-term clients received SHS services only during the defining study period. Historical clients received SHS services in the retrospective and defining study periods. Ongoing clients received SHS services in the defining and prospective study periods. Long-term clients, received SHS services in all three study periods.
  6. Reason refers to the reasons a client presented to any specialist homelessness services agency during the study period. 
  7. The variable Ever Presented Alone refers to whether a client was ever recorded as having presented for support (that is, started a support period) alone. Unlike many other variables, this is only recorded in the SHS data at the start of support periods. Counts of clients with values of No include cases where the variable is not stated or unknown. 
  8. The variable Presented with child(ren) indicates whether the client presented for support (that is, started a support period) as part of a group which contained one or more children.

Source: AIHW analysis of SHS longitudinal data 2016–23, Table FDVRHL2021.1.

Service engagement profiles

Longitudinal patterns of SHS support over the three study periods (see Figure Return.1) were examined for the 2020–21 FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL cohorts. This includes any SHS support received (not limited to FDV services).

A higher proportion of the FDV RHL cohort were (Figure Return.3, Table FDVRHL2021.1):

  • long-term clients (50% compared with 25% for the FDV non-RHL cohort), who received SHS support in all three study periods
  • historical clients (15% compared with 11%), who received SHS support in the retrospective and defining periods.

Figure Return.3: FDV returning and to homelessness cohort 2020–21, service engagement profiles

This interactive bar chart shows service use patterns of the 2020–21 FDV RHL cohort over the 2016–23 longitudinal period. Support information was combined from the discrete study periods into four service engagement profile groups (historical, short-term, long-term and ongoing). Of the 3,900 FDV RHL clients that made up the defining period cohort, 550 (14%) were short-term clients who only received support during the 24-month defining study period and 2,000 (51%) were long-term clients and had received support in all three study periods. Of the 17,400 FDV non-RHL clients that made up the defining period cohort, 6,400 (37%) were short-term clients and 4,300 (25%) were long-term clients.

Note: Short-term clients received SHS services only during the defining study period. Historical clients received SHS services in the retrospective and defining study periods. Ongoing clients received SHS services in the defining and prospective study periods. Long-term clients received SHS services in all three study periods.

Source: AIHW analysis of SHS longitudinal data 2016–23, Table FDVRHL2021.1.

Long-term clients – additional vulnerabilities

People who experience FDV may also experience other vulnerabilities that may make them more likely to experience homelessness (AIHW 2024c). The presence of selected vulnerabilities over the three study periods were examined for the 2020–21 FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL cohorts for long-term clients (Table FDVRHL2021.3).

Among the 2020–21 FDV RHL cohort who were long-term SHS clients (see ‘Service engagement profiles’ for further details) (Table FDVRHL2021.3):

  • over half (56%) experienced FDV in all three study periods, a similar proportion (53%) to the FDV non-RHL cohort who were long-term SHS clients.
  • Around 4 in 10 (39%) experienced a current mental health issue in all three study periods, compared with 3 in 10 (30%) of the FDV non-RHL cohort who were long-term SHS clients.
  • 1 in 11 (9.0%) experienced problematic drug and/or alcohol use in all three study periods, compared with 1 in 15 (6.7%) of the FDV non-RHL cohort who were long-term SHS clients.

SHS services needed

Differences in identified service need between the 2020–21 FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL cohorts were examined using relative risk, which was calculated by dividing the risk of an event occurring for one group (specifically, need for each service type for FDV RHL cohort) by the risk of an event occurring for another group (service need for FDV non-RHL cohort).

During the defining study period, compared with the FDV non-RHL cohort, the FDV RHL cohort were (Figure Return.4, Table FDVRHL2021.5):

  • 2.4 times as likely to need family planning support
  • 2.4 times as likely to need pregnancy assistance
  • 2.2 times as likely to need drug and/or alcohol counselling.
  • 2.1 times as likely to need assistance to prevent foreclosures or for mortgage arrears.
  • 2.1 times as likely to need assertive outreach for people rough sleeping.

Figure Return.4: FDV return to homelessness cohort 2020–21, relative risk of needing a SHS service type

The interactive risk ratio plot shows the differences in service need and reasons for seeking assistance between FDV RHL and FDV non-RHL clients receiving SHS support in each study period, these associations are presented as relative risks. The top services and reasons more likely to be selected by FDV RHL cohort clients compared with FDV non-RHL clients (that is, those with the largest relative risk) have been shown in the figure. A radio button allows selection for each of the study periods (defining, retrospective and prospective). FDV RHL clients were 2.6 times more likely to need counselling for problem gambling (relative risk [RR] 2.61) and 2.4 times more likely to need family planning support (relative risk [RR] 2.41) than clients in the FDV non-RHL cohort during the 2020–21 defining study period.

Note: Relative risk is derived by comparing two groups for their likelihood (risk) of an event. It is calculated by dividing the probability of a cohort client needing a SHS service/assistance divided by the probability of a non-cohort client needing a SHS service/assistance.

Source: AIHW analysis of SHS longitudinal data 2016–23, Table FDVRHL2021.5.

Factors associated with SHS support

Descriptive regression models were used to examine whether client characteristics or SHS support experience in the defining period were associated with SHS support in the prospective study period (ongoing service use) for the 2020–21 FDV RHL cohort (see Technical notes). Two models were created:

  • a ‘client characteristic’ model (Model 1) that contained client characteristics, and
  • a ‘reasons’ model (Model 2) that supplemented client characteristics with flags for the 26 possible reasons why the client sought support during the defining study period.

Results from Models 1 and 2 indicate that moving out of public or community housing may increase the risk of returning to seek support. Having started a support period in public or community housing and ending that support period in a different housing situation was associated with increased likelihood of using SHS services in the prospective period (15% and 16% more likely, respectively) (Figure Return.5, Table FDVRHL2021.6).

Figure Return.5: FDV return to homelessness cohort 2020–21, past and future service use

The interactive risk ratio plot shows the characteristics or reasons for presenting that are associated with FDV RHL clients’ need for SHS support in the past (retrospective) or future (prospective period), these associations are presented as relative risks. Two regression models can be selected, Model 1 contains client characteristics and experiences in the defining period, Model 2 contains client characteristics and the reasons for seeking support in the defining study period. Transitioning from custody during the defining study period had the strongest association (16% greater likelihood) with future SHS support. Other significant associations include starting in public or community housing and ending elsewhere (15% more likely), rough sleeping (14% more likely), being Indigenous (10% more likely) and experiencing problematic drug/alcohol issues (9% more likely).

For Model 2, FDV RHL clients who experienced medical issues (11% more likely) were particularly associated with ongoing SHS support.


Notes
 1. Apart from overseas-born and Indigenous, all other parameters capture whether a client ever experienced that situation in the defining period (for example, homeless captures whether the client was homeless at any time during a support period in the defining study period).
 2. Not employed means unemployed or not in the labour force.
 3. Presented with child(ren) means that the client started at least one support period in the defining study period with one or more children.
 4. Model 1 contains client characteristics and experiences in the defining period, Model 2 contains client characteristics and also the reasons for seeking support in the defining study period.
 5. Variables starting with "Reason" describe the reasons a client presented to any specialist homelessness agency during the defining study period.
 6. Model 1 includes 16 variables; Model 2 includes 42 variables. Only variables with a statistically significant relative risk are presented in this table.

Source: AIHW analysis of SHS longitudinal data 2016–23, Table FDVRHL2021.6.

Future considerations

There is a knowledge gap in understanding the service interactions and pathways of people experiencing FDV. This knowledge gap is underpinned by limited and fragmented national data that enables identification of people experiencing or at risk of FDV. Data linkage can be used to join multiple data sources to improve the coverage of FDV identification for statistical and research purposes.

In order to improve FDV research insights, it is important to expand the identification of people exposed to or at risk of FDV in national data. The AIHW, with funding from the Department of Social Services, is working to link to the National Health Data Hub and relevant subsets of data collections, including the Specialist Homelessness Services Collection and Child Protection National Minimum Data Set, to explore the extent to which linked data across collections can improve the coverage of FDV identification for statistical and research purposes.

The findings in this article may provide a useful foundation for more detailed future analysis on the service needs and vulnerabilities of people experiencing FDV.

Summary

There were almost 3,900 adult female SHS clients experiencing FDV and returning to homelessness in 2020–21. Half (50%) of the FDV RHL cohort were long-term SHS clients, compared with 25% for the FDV non-RHL cohort.

Compared with the FDV non-RHL cohort, during the defining period a higher proportion of the FDV RHL cohort had 3 or more SHS support periods (90% compared with 46%), and experienced both a current mental health issue and problematic drug and/or alcohol use (35% compared with 17%). The FDV RHL cohort was also 2.6 times as likely to need counselling for problem gambling and 2.4 times as likely to need family planning support and pregnancy assistance.

Descriptive regression models found that those in the FDV RHL cohort who exited public or community housing, and ended the SHS support period in a different housing situation, were 15–16% more likely to receive SHS support in the future.

Data tables