The Queensland Resilient Homes Fund has proven an effective recovery program for householders affected by floods, a review of the scheme has found.

The $741 million program, instituted after the 2021-22 floods in southern Queensland, has three main elements: voluntary home buybacks, home raising and resilient retrofits.

By last December, it had led to 685 buyback contracts being settled, 341 home raisings and 805 retrofit grants.

The review by the University of Queensland and University of Melbourne notes implementation has improved over time and the scheme provides lessons for pre-disaster mitigation programs and on the importance of rapid activation during disaster recovery.

Resilient Homes Fund staff and insurers have tested an insurance delivery model to explore whether insurance-led reconstruction can be aligned with government-funded resilience upgrades for insured homeowners.

“The pilot demonstrated that insurance could complement resilience programs but would need significant industry transformation to operate at scale as a key delivery mechanism for resilient post-disaster reconstruction,” the review says.

Related article: Trade-offs required as risk protection gap widens, researchers say

Professor Paula Jarzabkowski from the University of Queensland – who led the review – says many homeowners not only improved the safety of their properties but also experienced broader financial, social and emotional benefits.

“Programs like RHF can make a real difference in helping people recover from disasters and reduce their risk in future,” she said.

More than 6500 homeowners have registered for the fund.

The researchers say their findings highlight the need to balance rapid recovery with long-term adaptation.

Retrofitting will not stop houses being flooded, but when implemented correctly it should allow residents to clean up and get back into their homes more quickly. Raising a house can be effective in reducing loss, but some homes are not suitable and some owners cannot climb stairs to an elevated property. 

The review was funded by Natural Hazards Research Australia and the Queensland Reconstruction Authority. 

Find the report here.