Australia’s community housing providers (CHPs) are having a moment. Government transfers of public housing stock, new development partnerships, and increasing recognition of the sector’s role in addressing the housing crisis have created significant growth opportunities. Several CHPs now manage portfolios worth billions.

But growth at this pace creates tension. Can you scale a housing organisation to manage tens of thousands of properties while maintaining the wraparound support services and community focus that distinguish community housing from commercial property management?

I’ve been talking to people across the sector, and the answer is: it depends.

The growth story

Over the past decade, state governments across Australia have been transferring public housing stock to community housing providers. The logic is sound: CHPs can access Commonwealth Rent Assistance for their tenants (which public housing can’t), they can raise private finance for new development, and they tend to be more agile and tenant-responsive than large government housing authorities.

The transfers have been substantial. In NSW, thousands of properties have moved to CHPs. Victoria, Queensland, and South Australia have made similar transfers. The result is a community housing sector that’s grown rapidly in size and sophistication.

On top of transfers, several CHPs are developing new properties through partnerships with government, private developers, and institutional investors. The Housing Australia Future Fund, whatever its political trajectory, has signalled a commitment to expanding social and affordable housing supply.

The mission tension

Here’s where it gets complicated. Community housing providers aren’t just property managers. The best ones provide tenancy support, community development programs, and connections to social services. They help tenants sustain their tenancies through difficult periods. They build community within their developments.

This is what makes community housing different from simply handing properties to a commercial operator. It’s also what makes it more expensive, more complex, and harder to scale.

As CHPs grow, there’s a natural pressure to standardise operations, reduce costs, and improve efficiency. These are sensible business objectives, but they can conflict with the individualised, relationship-based approach that good community housing requires.

I spoke to a tenancy manager at a medium-sized CHP who described the tension bluntly: “When we were managing 500 properties, I knew most of our tenants by name. Now we’re managing 3,000, and I’m managing spreadsheets.”

What good scaling looks like

The CHPs that are managing growth well share some common characteristics.

They’re investing in technology — not to replace human relationships, but to free up staff time for the work that matters. Better property management systems, automated maintenance scheduling, and digital communication tools can handle the routine stuff so that staff can focus on complex tenancy issues and community engagement.

They’re maintaining local presence. Even as they grow to manage properties across wide geographic areas, they’re keeping local offices and local staff who understand the communities they serve.

They’re being deliberate about culture. Growth can dilute organisational culture faster than anything. The best CHPs are actively investing in staff development, embedding their social mission in training and performance management, and making sure that new hires understand they’re not joining a property company.

The governance challenge

Rapid growth also tests governance. Community housing providers are typically not-for-profits governed by boards that may have been appointed when the organisation was much smaller and simpler. Managing a multi-billion dollar property portfolio requires different governance skills than managing a small community organisation.

Several CHPs have been working on board renewal, bringing in directors with finance, development, and regulatory expertise alongside those with community and social services backgrounds. Getting this balance right is critical.

There’s also the regulatory dimension. The National Regulatory System for Community Housing sets standards that CHPs must meet. As organisations grow, the compliance burden increases, and the stakes of getting it wrong become higher.

The financing question

Growth requires capital, and community housing providers are increasingly accessing private finance. Bond issuances, institutional investment, and partnerships with private developers are all part of the mix.

This creates its own tensions. Private investors expect certain returns and risk management standards. Lenders impose covenants. The financial requirements of growth can push CHPs toward decisions that prioritise financial performance over social outcomes.

The challenge is maintaining a financial model that’s sustainable enough to attract investment but flexible enough to serve the most vulnerable tenants — who are often the most expensive to house and support.

What needs to happen

The community housing sector needs three things to scale successfully.

First, more investment in workforce development. The sector is growing faster than its workforce, and the skills required — combining property management with social work and community development — are specialised.

Second, better data systems. CHPs need to be able to track both property performance and tenant outcomes, and they need to be able to do it at scale. Too many organisations are still running on systems designed for a much smaller operation.

Third, honest conversation about tradeoffs. Growth isn’t free. It requires compromises, and the sector should be transparent about what those compromises are rather than pretending that scale comes without cost.

Community housing is one of Australia’s most important social infrastructure investments. Getting the growth right matters enormously.