[Note this article is published behind a pay wall]
This study examines the extent to which housing allowances and social housing protect against housing precarity experienced by low-income renters. By applying panel data modelling to Australian and UK data, we estimate how housing allowances and social housing affect low-income renters’ experience of housing stress, overcrowding, rent arrears and forced moves.
We find that the design of rental subsidy programs and the regulatory context within which each subsidy is implemented, are systematically linked to the level and type of precarity experienced by low-income renters. Specifically, relative to housing allowances, the design of social housing subsidies feature more targeted eligibility criteria and caps to rental costs. This design is more effective at reducing housing stress and rent arrears. We find no evidence that subsidy payment modes reduce overcrowding. The more stringent regulations featured in the social housing sector offer stronger protections against forced moves than what is seen in the private rental market where housing allowance recipients reside.
We conclude by proposing various ideas for policy reform to improve the effectiveness of both social housing and housing allowance programs as buffers against precarious housing.
