“We’re building more homes, which is necessary. But they’re not wholly designed for the realities women and gender diverse people face,” she says.
Michelle Phillips, group chief executive officer of YWCA Australia.
For many women and gender diverse people seeking safety and security, YWCA Australia is not just a housing provider, it is their first point of contact with the system. That gap is now being reframed not just as a social issue, but as an economic one.
With more than $10 billion committed through the Housing Australia Future Fund, alongside billions more flowing through federal and state housing programs, governments are allocating capital at scale – and the design of those homes is being set now.
New research by YWCA Australia in partnership with the Per Capita Centre for Equitable Housing seeks to quantify what frontline providers have long observed: stable long-term housing for women and gender diverse people generates measurable public value. It is housing that pays back.
Using a cost-benefit analysis on YWCA Australia’s national portfolio aligned with government treasury frameworks, the study found that every dollar invested in gender-responsive housing delivers just over $2 in return across the public system.
To put the number in context: major infrastructure projects are typically considered strong public value if they achieve a benefit-cost ratio between 1.5 and 2.0. YWCA Australia’s housing portfolio, assessed under deliberately conservative assumptions, clears that bar, and does so while delivering $3.5 million per year in avoided health system costs and $2.8 million per year in avoided justice system costs across its residents.
For Kate Raynor, director of the Centre for Equitable Housing at Per Capita, the choice of methodology was deliberate.
“We wanted to speak the language of Treasury,” she says. “Cost-benefit analysis is what governments use to evaluate infrastructure, whether that’s transport, health or housing.”
The modelling also deliberately errs on the side of caution.
“At every decision point, we used the most conservative assumptions available,” Raynor says. “We didn’t want to be accused of inflating the results. The project stands on its own.”
Kate Raynor, director of the Centre for Equitable Housing at Per Capita.
The economic case rests on a simple premise: housing instability carries costs that extend well beyond the housing system itself. When women and gender-diverse people lack stable housing, those costs are absorbed by the health system, the justice system, homelessness services, and child protection, the most expensive points of government intervention.
Housing pathways for women and gender diverse people are shaped by structural factors often overlooked; from lower lifetime earnings and unpaid care responsibilities to higher likelihood of domestic and family violence, says Phillips.
Those pressures play out differently across life stages. Younger women are more likely to experience instability linked to violence or insecure work, while women later in life may face sudden insecurity following relationship breakdowns or the loss of a partner.
“Every stage of life brings a different set of realities,” Phillips says. “When homes are designed around this, the whole system benefits.”
Gender-responsive housing seeks to address those dynamics directly, through design, location and tenancy structures.
That includes placing housing near transport, healthcare and childcare, integrating support services, and ensuring women are the leaseholders so they can remain in their homes if relationships break down.
“It’s about designing housing around the needs of women and gender-diverse people,” Phillips says. “Not expecting them to adapt to a system that wasn’t built for them.”
Raynor’s modelling shows how those design choices translate into fiscal outcomes.
Some of the largest savings come from reduced pressure on the healthcare system. People experiencing homelessness are significantly more likely to present at hospital emergency departments, one of the most expensive points of care.
“If you move someone from rough sleeping into stable housing, those presentations drop dramatically,” she says.
There are also measurable impacts on the justice system.
“Across Australia, at least two out of every five police callouts for assault are related to family and domestic violence,” Raynor says.
Avoided homelessness services form another major component. Women and gender diverse people are more likely to cycle through crisis accommodation multiple times before securing long-term housing – a pattern that carries significant cost.
Early intervention is critical. For many women and gender diverse people, organisations like YWCA Australia represent the first step out of crisis and, if effective, the point at which longer-term instability can be avoided.
One of the challenges for policymakers is that the benefits of housing investment are dispersed across government. Housing is typically funded through one portfolio, while savings accrue elsewhere – in health, justice and child protection systems.
“If a woman is securely housed and keeps her child with her, that’s a major saving in out-of-home care,” Raynor says. “But that benefit doesn’t show up in the housing budget.”
This fragmentation has historically made it harder to capture the full return on housing investment.
“What this research does is bring those pieces together,” she says. “It shows that housing stability is not just a social outcome – it’s an economic one.”
As governments ramp up spending on housing supply, the question is shifting from how much is built to what those homes deliver. Supply alone, the evidence shows, does not prevent women and gender-diverse people from falling back into insecurity.
“Gender responsive housing is a smart investment choice delivering significant economic and social benefits. Housing women is nation-building infrastructure. Safe homes create equal futures, and equal futures create a stronger economy,” says Phillips.
To find out more, please visit YWCA Australia.