The chapter has reviewed selected Australian examples of individualised housing and social assistance. A number of key issues were raised about the implementation of individualised housing and social support programs. The issues raised are not dissimilar to the international experience outlined in Chapters 2 and 3. First, the examples highlight the need to ensure that there remains a balance between both demand and supply-side responses. Interviewees noted that the provision of therapeutic programs with individualised forms of assistance is not a substitute for long-term supply side interventions that address the shortage of accommodation. Both components are required to deliver positive outcomes for clients. In Australia, the Common Ground and Foyer models of homelessness intervention provide clients with access to transitional or permanent housing, as well as integrated client-directed service response. While the Indigenous home ownership scheme is a demand-side response, historically housing assistance for Indigenous Australians has been weighted towards supply-side responses (e.g. provision of Indigenous Community Housing). This is exhibited by Indigenous Australians being less likely to access financial subsidies for home ownership and housing investment (e.g. negative gearing, capital gains tax exemptions on main residence, and First Home Ownership Scheme). Second, while most managers embraced client-centred approaches to service design and delivery they raised concerns about passing the responsibility on to vulnerable clients to navigate, advocate and determine forms and degree of support. Service providers recognised that there is considerable variation in client capacity to engage with and to navigate complex systems of service delivery. Managers in the homelessness sector were critical about the notion of choice for vulnerable client groups such as ex-offenders, who continue to face discrimination from private landlords regardless of the development of the