Cost-benefit analysis reveals every $1 invested in long-term gender-responsive housing returns $2.02 to government – rising to $4.66 in family reunification scenarios – while avoiding millions in annual health and justice costs.
New economic modelling released today by YWCA Australia and the Per Capita Centre for Equitable Housing reframes long-term social and affordable housing as one of the highest-returning infrastructure investments available to Australian governments.
The research applies rigorous cost-benefit analysis to YWCA Australia’s national housing portfolio and finds that purpose-designed housing for women, gender-diverse people and families delivers a return ranging from $2.02 to $4.66 for every dollar invested. Even the lower ratio of $2.02 meets or exceeds the benchmark typically required to approve major road, rail or flood mitigation projects.
Michelle Phillips, Group Chief Executive Officer of YWCA Australia says: “We now have a proven economic and social case. This isn’t social spending – it’s one of the highest-return investments governments can make.”
The modelling identifies substantial fiscal offsets that flow directly to government budgets: $3.5 million per annum in avoided health system costs and $2.8 million per annum in avoided justice system costs across the YWCA portfolio.
“These aren’t projections; they’re documented fiscal consequences of housing stability, traceable to specific reductions in emergency department presentations, police call-outs and crisis service use.”
Speaking at the launch of the report at Queensland’s Parliament House today, the Hon Sam O’Connor MP, Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works and Minister for Youth, said: “This report provides invaluable insight into the barriers women face in accessing safe, stable housing. A stable home changes everything: kids can stay in school, parents can focus on work, and families can plan for the future with confidence instead of anxiety.”
“When we invest in housing for women and their families, we’re investing in stronger communities right across Queensland. Research like this is critical to shaping policy that actually makes a difference, and this government is determined to deliver more social and affordable homes so that women and families have the stability and dignity they deserve.”
Where children are involved, the returns are stronger still. For a mother-and-child household, the benefit-cost ratio rises to 2.41. In family reunification scenarios, where stable housing enables a child to return from out-of-home care, the ratio reaches 4.66 – delivering a net public benefit of $1.56 million per household.
Critically, the modelling is deliberately conservative. Employment income effects, long-run child outcomes and the full value of wellbeing improvements are all excluded from the base-case calculation.
Dr Wesa Chau, Executive Director at Per Capita explained: “We wanted to use the language of Treasury. Cost-benefit analysis is what governments use to evaluate infrastructure, whether that is transport, health or housing. At every decision point, we used the most conservative assumptions available.”
With more than $10 billion committed through the Housing Australia Future Fund and additional capital flowing through federal and state programs, governments are allocating funding for social and affordable housing at scale. This research puts a pointed question to decision-makers: How should that capital be directed to ensure it delivers measurable social and economic returns?
“Housing policy has long been treated as gender-neutral,” explains Phillips. “In practice, that framing prioritises supply while overlooking how women and gender-diverse people experience the system. Women earn less, are more likely to work part-time, head 80% of single-parent households, and are three times more likely to experience family and domestic violence – the leading cause of homelessness for this cohort. When housing is designed around those realities, outcomes improve, stability increases and the economic return is stronger.
“This is about optimising funding for economic and social benefits – creating housing that delivers long-term stability rather than recycling people back through crisis,” she says. “This research proves an economic case, not just a social one.”
Based on the report’s conservative benefit-cost ratio, a $100 million pilot investment in long-term housing for women, gender-diverse people and families would be expected to generate approximately $202 million in measurable public benefit, with more than $20 million per year in avoided costs across health, justice and homelessness systems alone.
“That’s the kind of return that should be driving budget decisions for every government. Long term social and affordable housing for women and families is not just the right thing to do, it is a smart investment that delivers safety, stability, and independent futures.
The full report, including detailed methodology and scenario modelling, is available on our website.