“Private rentals are unaffordable for beneficiaries and low income working families, and increasingly now that’s middle income working families too.” [Transitional housing provider with significant background in social services] We also heard anger and frustration from both residents and service providers about the obligations imposed by MSD and HUD. They said service providers are required to try to support clients into ‘sustainable’ private rentals, where affordable private rentals simply do not exist. Some providers and advocates shared concerns that clients are being pushed to take on severely unaffordable private rentals just to reduce the numbers in emergency or transitional housing. They shared experiences of clients returning to the service after as little as three months because they were back in the same financial distress, or advocating for clients who were told a private rental would be ‘sustainable’ even though it would leave them with less than $50 a week for food and other expenses.33 They had particular concerns where clients were encouraged to take on fixedterm tenancies of 12 months or more, given the costs that were likely to be incurred if they broke the tenancy agreement and the long-term impacts this would have on a client’s rental history. “The recommendation for market rentals is setting one up to fail knowing the budget advisor’s recommendation for affordable housing with Kāinga Ora. The minimum benefit income combined with MSD accommodation subsidy may cover the cost of the rental, however, the minimum living cost such as food, water, utility bills, outstanding debts and medical certifications was not taken into consideration. Moving into market rentals with limited income leads to eviction resulting in homelessness.” [Former resident of emergency and then transitional housing] Where residents in the emergency housing system cannot find sustainable private rentals, their only other option is public housing. However, the number of those on the housing register, and the near-uniform prioritisation of applicants as having a severe housing need, means many people will struggle to access public housing or will wait prolonged periods before it becomes available. Many people shared their frustrations about the prioritisation and ranking, both in terms of process and transparency. Some advocates told us that it seems like MSD staff deliberately try to keep register numbers low or to downplay housing need so that clients are not included in the Priority A statistics. We heard from one advocate that MSD staff are not taking enough time during the Public Housing Needs Assessment/Application, making it impossible to reach an accurate rating that reflects the full picture.34 Advocates told us the interview process requires people to discuss sensitive information including trauma or family harm, and accurately describe sometimes significant dysfunction to an unknown call centre employee. They told us that the shame or whakamā of having to admit these kinds of issues results in some clients downplaying their own issues and receiving an inaccurate rating. We also heard that people’s prioritisation ratings were changed without them being informed, even where they did not give MSD any new information.35 “My housing rating kept changing without my knowledge.” [Resident in emergency accommodation] “Our residents’ ratings dropped 2-3 points over Christmas for no reason that we could see. It takes a lot of intense work to [follow up with MSD and] raise the points so that they reflect the true 37