The preceding section outlined four immediate obligations in relation to homelessness, arising from the right to a decent home. In this section, we consider the evidence and assess whether these binding international human rights obligations are being respected in Aotearoa New Zealand. In some cases, the human rights issues are similar or identical across both emergency accommodation and transitional housing. However, we have made a significant effort to identify where one initiative is failing and the other is not. This is because we do not wish to suggest that both initiatives need re-design. There are some areas where policy or operational practice is working. The Inquiry has observed tensions and inconsistencies between emergency accommodation and transitional housing. They are fundamentally different initiatives, including in policy design, models of service delivery, and governance. However, over time the distinction between emergency accommodation and transitional housing has reduced. Emergency accommodation and transitional housing were (and are) intended to respond to specific and different housing need, but increased need has driven both initiatives to respond in ways that were not originally intended. Government has acknowledged “the two initiatives comprising the emergency housing system, the [emergency housing grant] and transitional housing, appear to clients, the public, and agencies interviewed by this stocktake as increasingly similar initiatives despite one being a grant, and the other the delivery of a service (or programme).”45 Development of both the emergency housing grant and transitional housing (then known as ‘contracted emergency housing’) initiatives began concurrently in 2015. The emergency housing grant was introduced as a solution to the increasing homelessness observed by Government in 2015 and 2016, and is designed to deliver on a specific policy intent, providing very short-term 44 Human Rights Commission accommodation as a ‘bridge’ before residents either move into transitional housing or other sustainable housing solutions. But the emergency housing grant initiative now operates well beyond its policy intention, in part to resolve the lack of places available in the transitional housing programme. As a result, emergency accommodation has become increasingly embedded as a programme that operates both in tandem with, and parallel to, the transitional housing programme. Most residents will stay in emergency accommodation for much longer periods than originally intended, some to the point that they will never access transitional housing before they exit the emergency housing system entirely. This is despite transitional housing being significantly more appropriate for long stays, and a wider range of wraparound support services available in the transitional housing programme. As acknowledged by Government: [Emergency housing grants] are more expensive and have worse outcomes than COVID-19 and Transitional motels as they do not come with any services or support that help address underlying causes of homelessness and result in better outcomes for whānau.46 In either instance, the average length of stay in the emergency housing system is now far longer than originally intended or anticipated. Many of the people who shared their experiences also told us that problems like poor habitability standards are endemic to both emergency accommodation and some transitional housing. We have also heard about the substantive differences between the two initiatives, such as having access to wraparound social support in transitional housing compared to less support or accountability over providers of emergency accommodation. Where emergency accommodation and transitional housing are