When the Commonwealth sends roughly $1.8 billion a year to the states for social housing and homelessness, the questions that matter are whether it was spent on what it was meant for, whether the states matched the homelessness component they agreed to match, and whether anything improved.

All three are published, annually, for every jurisdiction. The New South Wales 2024-25 statement reports Commonwealth specified homelessness funding of $539.6 million, total expenditure on social housing and homelessness of $3,112.3 million, and an explicit yes-or-no certification that the specified homelessness funding was matched. It then reports program by program -- assertive outreach at $7.9 million against 422 people housed, 2,751 patrols and 4,752 engagements -- and closes with a section structured as outcome, indicator and measure, giving 156,417 social housing dwellings at 30 June 2025 against the prior year.

That is a serious acquittal document, and it is on a public website with its seven siblings.

Read the statement for the jurisdiction and year you care about, on the Federal Financial Relations website. The AIHW publishes national performance indicators against the agreement separately, which is the better route for a cross-jurisdiction view.

Building a comparable series across all eight jurisdictions means transcribing eight PDFs a year.

This entry exists because the opposite claim was made first, and the record of that is more useful than the entry itself.

A federal research brief for this project asserted in August 2026 that jurisdictions' reporting against the National Outcomes Framework went to the Commonwealth and was not published, and recorded not_published against it. The claim survived one round of checking as unresolved, because a search of coverage turned up nothing either way. It was settled on 2026-09-03 by opening the Federal Financial Relations agreements page, where all eight jurisdictions' 2024-25 statements had been published in August 2026, alongside 2023-24 under the predecessor agreement and earlier years in the National Library web archive.

verified rather than reported, because the NSW statement was downloaded and read rather than described from a summary. That is the standard the register should hold for a claim this specific, and it is the standard almost nothing in the original federal research met.

One limitation is recorded honestly and is a matter of container rather than content. Eight PDFs a year answer a question about one jurisdiction easily and make comparison across jurisdictions or over time a transcription project. The dataset scores accordingly.

Companion to Did the $2 billion Social Housing Accelerator buy homes that would not otherwise have been built?, which is the same disclosure pattern on the smaller $2 billion instrument -- and which the register also, at first, wrongly said was unpublished.