Specialist homelessness services annual report 2024–25

This chapter presents the characteristics, service use patterns, and housing outcomes of clients exiting custodial arrangements. This group includes SHS clients who, at the start of their first support period, were leaving or referred from adult, youth, or immigration detention facilities, as well as those who identified transition from custody as a reason for seeking assistance.

Access to stable accommodation is critical for successful reintegration into the community and people exiting custody can be highly vulnerable to not having adequate and stable accommodation (AIC 2018).   

For more information clients exiting institutions and care, and the policy landscape and government response, please see Clients exiting custodial arrangements.

Client characteristics

To compare selected characteristics and experiences across the SHS client groups presented in this report, please refer to the Client group comparison visualisations.

Labour force status

Most clients exiting custodial arrangements with known labour force status were not in the labour force (57%). More than two-fifths (41%) were unemployed (that is, seeking work) and only 2.1% were employed (Supplementary table EXIT.7). Female clients were more likely to be unemployed (49% of all female clients) than males (39%). Females were also more likely to be employed part-time (2.5%) than males (0.9%).

Service use patterns

On average, clients exiting custodial arrangements received a median of 45 days of support in 2024–25, up from 44 days in 2023–24. The average number of support periods per client was 1.8 support periods per client in 2024–25 (Supplementary table CLIENTS.48).

New or returning clients

In 2024–25 (Supplementary table CLIENTS.42), among SHS clients exiting custodial arrangements:

• One-quarter (25% or 2,200 clients) were new to SHS agencies and 75% (6,600 clients) were returning clients, having previously been assisted by a SHS agency at some point since the collection began in July 2011.
• The proportion of returning clients was one of the highest among all SHS client groups and higher than all SHS clients (63%; Supplementary table CLIENTS.2).
• New clients were more likely to be under 18 (7.4%, compared with 3.7% of returning clients).

Client needs and main reason for assistance

Main reasons for seeking assistance

Clients exiting custodial arrangements were most likely to identify transition from custodial arrangements as the main reason for seeking assistance, regardless of if they were at risk of homelessness at first presentation (82% or 4,700 clients) or experiencing homelessness (43% or 1,200 clients) (Supplementary table EXIT.6). 

In 2024–25, among the 5,800 clients exiting custodial arrangements and who were at risk of homelessness, the other main reasons for seeking assistance were (Supplementary tables CLIENTS.12 and EXIT.6):

• housing crisis (3.1% or 180 clients)
• family and domestic violence (2.3% or 130 clients)
• housing affordability stress  (1.7% or 100 clients).

In 2024–25, among the 2,900 clients exiting custodial arrangements and who were experiencing homelessness, the other main reasons for seeking assistance were:

• inadequate or inappropriate dwelling conditions (13% or 380 clients)
• housing crisis (12% or 340 clients)
• housing affordability stress (6.7% or 195 clients).

Services needed and provided

Services provided to SHS clients exiting custodial arrangements range from the direct provision of accommodation, such as a bed in a shelter, to more specialised services such as counselling and legal support. These services are generally either provided to the client directly by the agency or the client is referred to another SHS agency or specialised service. 

The services most commonly needed by clients exiting custody during 2024–25 were (Figure EXIT.2, Supplementary table EXIT.2):

• short-term or temporary accommodation (43% or 3,800 clients), with 2,100 clients provided this assistance
• medium-term or transitional housing (32% or 2,800 clients), with 390 clients provided this assistance. 

Clients exiting custody were more likely than all SHS clients to need the following services including (Supplementary tables EXIT.2, CLIENTS.24):

• assistance with challenging social/behavioural problems (13%, compared with 10%) 
• drug/alcohol counselling (7.6%, compared with 2.8%)
• employment assistance (8.1%, compared with 5.3%).

Housing situation and outcomes

This section highlights changes in clients’ housing situation between the start and end of support. That is, the place they were living before and after receiving assistance from a SHS agency. The data includes only clients who ceased receiving SHS support during the financial year and were no longer receiving ongoing support from a SHS agency. 

Specifically, it compares clients’ housing at the start of their first support period in 2024–25 with the end of their last support period in 2024–25. It does not capture changes that occurred during a support period, nor changes throughout the year between different support periods.

In 2024–25, of the approximately 2,000 clients exiting custodial arrangements who were known to be experiencing homelessness at start of support (Supplementary table EXIT.3):

• 1,300 clients were known to be experiencing homelessness when support ended; of these, around 610 were living in short-term temporary accommodation and 330 were sleeping rough. 

In 2024–25, of the approximately 4,500 clients exiting custodial arrangements who were known to be at risk of homelessness at the start of support (Supplementary table EXIT.3):

• Most clients maintained their housing situation when support ended; around 3,000 clients maintained housing in institutional settings.
• Around 630 clients were experiencing homelessness when support ended, with 385 in short term accommodation.
• Around 105 clients who began support in institutional settings ended support sleeping rough.

These trends demonstrate that known housing outcomes at the end of support can be challenging for clients transitioning from institutional settings. While some clients progressed towards more positive housing solutions, many remained in institutional settings, returned to institutional settings or were experiencing homelessness at the end of support.