Long-term housing and work outcomes among treated cocaine-dependent homeless persons

Effectiveness of employment-based interventions for persons experiencing homelessness: A systematic review

Employment is frequently desired by persons who experience homelessness yet is often elusive. Little is known about the range and effectiveness of employment-based interventions evaluated in existing literature on key psychosocial outcomes including employment participation, mental well-being, housing tenure, community integration and substance use. To identify and synthesise existing studies, we conducted a systematic review of effectiveness using the methodology proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Following the removal of duplicates, we screened 13,398 titles and abstracts, and reviewed 79 studies at the full-text review stage using two independent raters. A total of 16 studies met criteria for inclusion in a narrative synthesis and were subjected to critical appraisal. The majority of studies were conducted in the US (n = 14; 87.5%) with other studies published in Canada (n = 1; 6.3%) and Australia (n = 1; 6.3%). Interventions evaluated in existing studies included combined substance use and vocational skills interventions (n = 7; 43.8%), supported employment (n = 6; 37.5%), and integrated supports including an employment component (n = 3; 18.8%). The effectiveness of these interventions on employment, mental well-being, housing tenure, community integration, and substance use is presented. Findings suggest that research evaluating employment interventions for persons who experience homelessness is in an early stage of development. Researchers and practitioners may consider collaborating with persons with lived experiences of homelessness and practitioners in co-designing and modifying existing approaches to target key outcomes more effectively. Policymakers may consider allocating resources to such initiatives to further the development of practice and research aimed at supporting persons who experience homelessness to secure and sustain employment during and following homelessness.

A comprehensive review of prioritised interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of persons with lived experience of homelessness

Background

Homelessness has emerged as a public health priority, with growing numbers of vulnerable populations despite advances in social welfare. In February 2020, the United Nations passed a historic resolution, identifying the need to adopt social-protection systems and ensure access to safe and affordable housing for all. The establishment of housing stability is a critical outcome that intersects with other social inequities. Prior research has shown that in comparison to the general population, people experiencing homelessness have higher rates of infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, and mental-health disorders, along with disproportionately poorer outcomes. Hence, there is an urgent need to identify effective interventions to improve the lives of people living with homelessness.

Objectives

The objective of this systematic review is to identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the benefits and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and social outcomes of people experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

In consultation with an information scientist, we searched nine bibliographic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL, from database inception to February 10, 2020 using keywords and MeSH terms. We conducted a focused grey literature search and consulted experts for additional studies.

Selection Criteria

Teams of two reviewers independently screened studies against our inclusion criteria. We included randomised control trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies conducted among populations experiencing homelessness in high-income countries. Eligible interventions included permanent supportive housing (PSH), income assistance, standard case management (SCM), peer support, mental health interventions such as assertive community treatment (ACT), intensive case management (ICM), critical time intervention (CTI) and injectable antipsychotics, and substance-use interventions, including supervised consumption facilities (SCFs), managed alcohol programmes and opioid agonist therapy. Outcomes of interest were housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment and income.

Data Collection and Analysis

Teams of two reviewers extracted data in duplicate and independently. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We performed our statistical analyses using RevMan 5.3. For dichotomous data, we used odds ratios and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. For continuous data, we used the mean difference (MD) with a 95% CI if the outcomes were measured in the same way between trials. We used the standardised mean difference with a 95% CI to combine trials that measured the same outcome but used different methods of measurement. Whenever possible, we pooled effect estimates using a random-effects model.

Main Results

The search resulted in 15,889 citations. We included 86 studies (128 citations) that examined the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of interventions for people with lived experience of homelessness. Studies were conducted in the United States (73), Canada (8), United Kingdom (2), the Netherlands (2) and Australia (1). The studies were of low to moderate certainty, with several concerns regarding the risk of bias. PSH was found to have significant benefits on housing stability as compared to usual care. These benefits impacted both high- and moderate-needs populations with significant cimorbid mental illness and substance-use disorders. PSH may also reduce emergency department visits and days spent hospitalised. Most studies found no significant benefit of PSH on mental-health or substance-use outcomes. The effect on quality of life was also mixed and unclear. In one study, PSH resulted in lower odds of obtaining employment. The effect on income showed no significant differences. Income assistance appeared to have some benefits in improving housing stability, particularly in the form of rental subsidies. Although short-term improvement in depression and perceived stress levels were reported, no evidence of the long-term effect on mental health measures was found. No consistent impact on the outcomes of quality of life, substance use, hospitalisations, employment status, or earned income could be detected when compared with usual services. SCM interventions may have a small beneficial effect on housing stability, though results were mixed. Results for peer support interventions were also mixed, though no benefit was noted in housing stability specifically. Mental health interventions (ICM, ACT, CTI) appeared to reduce the number of days homeless and had varied effects on psychiatric symptoms, quality of life, and substance use over time. Cost analyses of PSH interventions reported mixed results. Seven studies showed that PSH interventions were associated with increased cost to payers and that the cost of the interventions were only partially offset by savings in medical- and social-services costs. Six studies revealed that PSH interventions saved the payers money. Two studies focused on the cost-effectiveness of income-assistance interventions. For each additional day housed, clients who received income assistance incurred additional costs of US$45 (95% CI, -$19, -$108) from the societal perspective. In addition, the benefits gained from temporary financial assistance were found to outweigh the costs, with a net savings of US$20,548. The economic implications of case management interventions (SCM, ICM, ACT, CTI) was highly uncertain. SCM clients were found to incur higher costs than those receiving the usual care. For ICM, all included studies suggested that the intervention may be cost-offset or cost-effective. Regarding ACT, included studies consistently revealed that ACT saved payers money and improved health outcomes than usual care. Despite having comparable costs (US$52,574 vs. US$51,749), CTI led to greater nonhomeless nights (508 vs. 450 nights) compared to usual services.

Authors' Conclusions

PSH interventions improved housing stability for people living with homelessness. High-intensity case management and income-assistance interventions may also benefit housing stability. The majority of included interventions inconsistently detected benefits for mental health, quality of life, substance use, employment and income. These results have important implications for public health, social policy, and community programme implementation. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need to tackle systemic inequality and address social determinants of health. Our review provides timely evidence on PSH, income assistance, and mental health interventions as a means of improving housing stability. PSH has major cost and policy implications and this approach could play a key role in ending homelessness. Evidence-based reviews like this one can guide practice and outcome research and contribute to advancing international networks committed to solving homelessness.

Accommodation-based interventions for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness

Background

Globally, almost 1.6 billion individuals lack adequate housing. Many accommodation-based approaches have evolved across the globe to incorporate additional support and services beyond delivery of housing.

Objectives

This review examines the effectiveness of accommodation-based approaches on outcomes including housing stability, health, employment, crime, wellbeing, and cost for individuals experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness.

Search Methods

The systematic review is based on evidence already identified in two existing EGMs commissioned by the Centre for Homelessness Impact (CHI) and built by White et al. The maps were constructed using a comprehensive three stage search and mapping process. Stage one mapped included studies in an existing systematic review on homelessness, stage two was an extensive search of 17 academic databases, three EGM databases, and eight systematic review databases. Finally stage three included web searches for grey literature, scanning reference lists of included studies and consultation with experts to identify additional literature. We identified 223 unique studies across 551 articles from the effectiveness map on 12th April 2019.

Selection Criteria

We include research on all individuals currently experiencing, or at risk of experiencing homelessness irrespective of age or gender, in high-income countries. The Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) contains all study designs where a comparison group was used. This includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, matched comparisons and other study designs that attempt to isolate the impact of the intervention on homelessness. The NMA primarily addresses how interventions can reduce homelessness and increase housing stability for those individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness. Additional outcomes are examined and narratively described. These include: access to mainstream healthcare; crime and justice; employment and income; capabilities and wellbeing; and cost of intervention. These outcomes reflect the domains used in the EGM, with the addition of cost.

Data Collection and Analysis

Due to the diverse nature of the literature on accommodation-based approaches, the way in which the approaches are implemented in practice, and the disordered descriptions of the categories, the review team created a novel typology to allow meaningful categorisations for functional and useful comparison between the various intervention types. Once these eligible categories were identified, we undertook dual data extraction, where two authors completed data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessments independently for each study. NMA was conducted across outcomes related to housing stability and health.Qualitative data from process evaluations is included using a "Best Fit" Framework synthesis. The purpose of this synthesis is to complement the quantitative evidence and provide a better understanding of what factors influenced programme effectiveness. All included Qualitative data followed the initial framework provided by the five main analytical categories of factors of influence (reflected in the EGM), namely: contextual factors, policy makers/funders, programme administrators/managers/implementing agencies, staff/case workers and recipients of the programme.

Main Results

There was a total of 13,128 people included in the review, across 51 reports of 28 studies. Most of the included studies were carried out in the United States of America (25/28), with other locations including Canada and the UK. Sixteen studies were RCTs (57%) and 12 were nonrandomised (quasi-experimental) designs (43%). Assessment of methodological quality and potential for bias was conducted using the second version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for Randomised controlled trials. Nonrandomised studies were coded using the ROBINS- I tool. Out of the 28 studies, three had sufficiently low ROB (11%), 11 (39%) had moderate ROB, and five (18%) presented serious problems with ROB, and nine (32%) demonstrated high, critical problems with their methodology. A NMA on housing stability outcomes demonstrates that interventions offering the highest levels of support alongside unconditional accommodation (High/Unconditional) were more effective in improving housing stability compared to basic support alongside unconditional housing (Basic/Unconditional) (ES=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.39, 1.82]), and in comparison to a no-intervention control group (ES=0.62, 95% CI [0.19, 1.06]). A second NMA on health outcomes demonstrates that interventions categorised as offering Moderate/Conditional (ES= 0.36, 95% CI [0.03, 0.69]) and High/Unconditional (ES = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43]) support were effective in improving health outcomes compared to no intervention. These effects were smaller than those observed for housing stability. The quality of the evidence was relatively low but varied across the 28 included studies. Depending on the context, finding accommodation for those who need it can be hindered by supply and affordability in the market. The social welfare approach in each jurisdiction can impact heavily on support available and can influence some of the prejudice and stigma surrounding homelessness. The evaluations emphasised the need for collaboration and a shared commitment between policymakers, funders and practitioners which creates community and buy in across sectors and agencies. However, co-ordinating this is difficult and requires sustainability to work. For those implementing programmes, it was important to invest time in developing a culture together to build trust and solid relationships. Additionally, identifying sufficient resources and appropriate referral routes allows for better implementation planning. Involving staff and case workers in creating processes helps drive enthusiasm and energy for the service. Time should be allocated for staff to develop key skills and communicate engage effectively with service users. Finally, staff need time to develop trust and relationships with service users; this goes hand in hand with providing information that is up to date and useful as well making themselves accessible in terms of location and time.

Authors' Conclusions

The network meta-analysis suggests that all types of accommodation which provided support are more effective than no intervention or Basic/Unconditional accommodation in terms of housing stability and health. The qualitative evidence synthesis raised a primary issue in relation to context: which was the lack of stable, affordable accommodation and the variability in the rental market, such that actually sourcing accommodation to provide for individuals who are homeless is extremely challenging. Collaboration between stakeholders and practitioners can be fruitful but difficult to coordinate across different agencies and organisations.

Current emergency response in montreal: How does it fit in the services offered to homeless people who use substances?

Background This paper presents an assessment of the current emergency response to homeless people who use substances in Montreal, a major North American city. This project addresses the rising concern about homelessness in high-income countries. Several studies have shown that homeless people frequently use emergency services (i.e., police, paramedical, and hospital), especially in the context of substance use. Yet, the key actors' perspectives are poorly documented. Method Our team conducted a needs analysis using a deliberative democratic evaluation. Data collection strategies included an intersectoral World Café (n = 34, including police, specialized professionals, community stakeholders, political representatives, researchers, and people who have been homeless) and individual interviews with health professionals (n = 5) and homeless people (n = 8). We performed a thematic content analysis based on a conceptual framework of access to health care and of collaboration. Findings This study provided key information on the role of emergency services and the needs of key actors, in terms of the dimensions of access to health care (approachability, acceptability, availability, and appropriateness) and continuity. Our main results show that, according to the participants, the emergency response is relevant when homeless people are a danger to themselves or to others, and during episodes of acute physical and psychological care. However, emergency service providers still stigmatize homelessness and substance use, which negatively affects intervention quality. Finally, our main results highlight the interdependence between the emergency services and health, social, and community services. Conclusion The emergency response is necessary and appropriate in some situations. It remains important to intervene upstream and to improve the attitudes and practices of emergency service providers. Finally, it is necessary to adapt services to the needs of homeless substance users and improve service continuity, for example, by adopting a population-based approach.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless. Forty-three studies were included in the review, 37 of which are from the USA. Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: High intensity case managementHousing FirstCritical time interventionAbstinence-contingent housingNon-abstinence-contingent housing with high intensity case managementHousing vouchersResidential treatment These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability.

Plain Language Summary

Interventions to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability are effective: There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Interventions to address homelessness seem to be effective, though better quality evidence is required.What is this review about?: There are large numbers of homeless people around the world. Recent estimates are over 500,000 people in the USA, 100,000 in Australia and 30,000 in Sweden. Efforts to combat homelessness have been made on national levels as well as at local government levels.This review assesses the effectiveness of interventions combining housing and case management as a means to reduce homelessness and increase residential stability for individuals who are homeless, or at risk of becoming homeless.What studies are included?: Included studies were randomized controlled trials of interventions for individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless, and which measured impact on homelessness or housing stability with follow-up of at least one year.A total of 43 studies were included. The majority of the studies (37) were conducted in the United States, with three from the United Kingdom and one each from Australia, Canada, and Denmark.What are the main findings of this review?: Included interventions perform better than the usual services at reducing homelessness or improving housing stability in all comparisons. These interventions are: High intensity case managementHousing FirstCritical time interventionAbstinence-contingent housingNon-abstinence-contingent housing with high intensity case managementHousing vouchersResidential treatment These interventions seem to have similar beneficial effects, so it is unclear which of these is best with respect to reducing homelessness and increasing housing stability.What do the findings of this review mean?: A range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services.However, there is uncertainty in this finding as most the studies have risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization or allocation concealment of participants. In addition to the general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research with respect to: 1) disadvantaged youth; 2) abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) non-abstinence contingent housing comparing group vs independent living; 4) Housing First compared to interventions other than usual services, and; 5) studies outside of the USA.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to January 2016. This Campbell systematic review was published in February 2018.

Executive summary

Background: The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) states that everyone has a right to housing. However, this right is far from being realized for many people worldwide. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are approximately 100 million homeless people worldwide. The aim of this report is to contribute evidence to inform future decision making and practice for preventing and reducing homelessness.Objectives: To identify, appraise and summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of housing programs and case management to improve housing stability and reduce homelessness among people who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless.Search methods: We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Norwegian Knowledge Centre's handbook. We systematically searched for literature in relevant databases and conducted a grey literature search which was last updated in January 2016.Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials that included individuals who were already, or at-risk of becoming, homeless were included if they examined the effectiveness of relevant interventions on homelessness or housing stability. There were no limitations regarding language, country or length of homelessness. Two reviewers screened 2,918 abstracts and titles for inclusion. They read potentially relevant references in full, and included relevant studies in the review.Data collection and analysis: We pooled the results and conducted meta-analyses when possible. Our certainty in the primary outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for effectiveness approach (GRADE).Results: We included 43 relevant studies (described in 78 publications) that examined the effectiveness of housing programs and/or case management services on homelessness and/or housing stability. The results are summarized below. Briefly, we found that the included interventions performed better than the usual services in all comparisons. However, certainty in the findings varied from very low to moderate. Most of the studies were assessed as having high risk of bias due to poor reporting, lack of blinding, or poor randomization and/or allocation concealment of participants.Case management: Case management is a process where clients are assigned case managers who assess, plan and facilitate access to health and social services necessary for the client's recovery. The intensity of these services can vary. One specific model is Critical time intervention, which is based on the same principles, but offered in three three-month periods that decrease in intensity.High intensity case management compared to usual services has generally more positive effects: It probably reduces the number of individuals who are homeless after 12-18 months by almost half (RR=0.59, 95%CI=0.41 to 0.87)(moderate certainty evidence); It may increase the number of people living in stable housing after 12-18 months and reduce the number of days an individual spends homeless (low certainty evidence), however; it may have no effect on the number of individuals who experience some homelessness during a two year period (low certainty evidence). When compared to low intensity case management, it may have little or no effect on time spent in stable housing (low certainty evidence).Critical time intervention compared to usual services may 1) have no effect on the number of people who experience homelessness, 2) lead to fewer days spent homeless, 3) lead to more days spent not homeless and, 4) reduce the amount of time it takes to move from shelter to independent housing (low certainty evidence).Abstinence-contingent housing programs: Abstinence-contingent housing is housing provided with the expectation that residents will remain sober. The results showed that abstinence-contingent housing may lead to fewer days spent homeless, compared with usual services (low certainty evidence).Non-abstinence-contingent housing programs: Non-abstinence-contingent housing is housing provided with no expectations regarding sobriety of residents. Housing First is the name of one specific non-abstinence-contingent housing program. When compared to usual services Housing First probably reduces the number of days spent homeless (MD=-62.5, 95%CI=-86.86 to -38.14) and increases the number of days in stable housing (MD=110.1, 95%CI=93.05 to 127.15) (moderate certainty evidence). In addition, it may increase the number of people placed in permanent housing after 20 months (low certainty evidence).Non-abstinence-contingent housing programs (not specified as Housing First) in combination with high intensity case management may reduce homelessness, compared to usual services (low certainty evidence). Group living arrangements may be better than individual apartments at reducing homelessness (low certainty evidence).Housing vouchers with case management: Housing vouchers is a housing allowance given to certain groups of people who qualify. The results showed that it mayreduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared with usual services or case management (low certainty evidence).Residential treatment with case management: Residential treatment is a type of housing offered to clients who also need treatment for mental illness or substance abuse. We found that it mayreduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared with usual services (low certainty evidence).Authors' conclusions: We found that a range of housing programs and case management interventions appear to reduce homelessness and improve housing stability, compared to usual services. The findings showed no indication of housing programs or case management resulting in poorer outcomes for homeless or at-risk individuals than usual services.Aside from a general need for better conducted and reported studies, there are specific gaps in the research. We identified research gaps concerning: 1)Disadvantaged youth; 2) Abstinence-contingent housing with case management or day treatment; 3) Non-abstinence contingent housing, specifically different living arrangements (group vs independent living); 4) Housing First compared to interventions other than usual services, and; 5) All interventions from contexts other than the USA.

Housing First and harm reduction: a rapid review and document analysis of the US and Canadian open-access literature

BACKGROUND

Housing First is an evidence-based practice intended to serve chronically homeless individuals with co-occurring serious mental illness and substance use disorders. Despite housing active substance users, harm reduction is an often-overlooked element during the Housing First implementation process in real-world settings. In this paper, we explore the representation of the Housing First model within the open-access scholarly literature as a potential contributing factor for this oversight.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid review of the US and Canadian open-access Housing First literature. We followed a document analysis approach, to form an interpretation of the articles' content related to our primary research questions.

RESULTS

A total of 55 articles on Housing First were included in the final analysis. Only 21 of these articles (38.1%) included explicit mention of harm reduction. Of the 34 articles that did not discuss harm reduction, 22 provided a description of the Housing First model indicating it does not require abstinence from substance use; however, descriptions did not all clearly indicate abstinence was not required beyond program entry. Additional Housing First descriptions focused on the low-barrier entry criteria and/or the intervention's client-centeredness.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review demonstrated a lack of both explicit mention and informed discussion of harm reduction in the Housing First literature, which is likely contributing to the Housing First research-practice gap to some degree. Future Housing First literature should accurately explain the role of harm reduction when discussing it in the context of Housing First programming, and public agencies promoting Housing First uptake should provide resources for proper implementation and monitor program fidelity to prevent model drift.

The Role of Recovery Housing: Prioritizing Choice in Homeless Services

Housing options for people exiting homelessness and seeking recovery from substance use disorders are limited. Policies tend to favor low-demand models such as housing first and permanent supportive housing that do not require abstinence, but offer immediate housing placement based on consumer choice and separate housing from clinical services. While these models have proven effective in promoting housing retention, especially among individuals with a primary diagnosis of mental illness, evidence to support positive outcomes related to people with a primary or co-occurring substance use disorder are mixed. Recovery housing models provide abstinence-focused environments and integrated peer support embedded within a recovery framework. Various models exist along a continuum from fully peer-run to clinically staffed residences. However, this continuum is typically separate from the homeless services system, and many barriers to integration persist. Recent national dialogues have begun to explore opportunities to integrate housing and substance use recovery approaches to meet the needs of people who need both types of support. This perspective paper argues that recovery housing is essential for supporting some homeless individuals and families. Within a comprehensive continuum based on choice, both recovery housing and low-demand models can support housing retention, reduce homelessness, promote recovery, and foster self-determination.

Housing First and the Risk of Failure: A Comment on Westermeyer and Lee (2013)

Over the last 5 years, community policies in response to homelessness have shifted toward offering permanent housing accompanied by treatment supports, without requiring treatment success as a precondition. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has embraced this "Housing First" approach. A 2013 report sounds a contrarian note. In a 16-person quasi-experimental study, 8 veterans who entered VA's permanent supportive housing did poorly, whereas 8 veterans who remained in more traditional treatment did well. In this commentary, we suggest that the report was problematic in the conceptualization of the matters it sought to address and in its science. Nonetheless, it highlights challenges that must not be ignored. From this report and other research, we now know that even more attention is required to support clinical recovery for Housing First clients. Successful implementation of Housing First requires guidance from agency leaders, and their support for clinical staff when individual clients fare poorly.

Housing First/HUD-VASH: Importance, Flaws, and Potential for Transformation: Response to Commentary

This paper consists of responses to issues raised in the accompanying Commentary. Our response is organized under three topics: (1) reasons regarding the importance of issues, (2) the need for a comprehensive framework in housing placement, and (3) conceptualization and scientific design (with details on contemporary methods for investigating unanticipated consequences when randomization is no longer feasible). Recurrences to substance use disorder in the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) housing placement condition are noted within hours or days, with rapid implementation of planned contingencies, and avoidance of enabling. Recurrences in the Housing First/HUD-VASH (HF/H-V) condition escape notice for weeks to months, and continued use is accepted as a core principle of the program. HF/H-V contingencies occur later for major disruptions, leading to discharge. For patients recruited from our clinic, HF/H-V performed poorly when compared to a long-accepted standard of care, the ASAM placement criteria.

A comparison of three interventions for homeless youth evidencing substance use disorders: results of a randomized clinical trial

While research on homeless adolescents and young adults evidencing substance use disorder is increasing, there is a dearth of information regarding effective interventions, and more research is needed to guide those who serve this population. The current study builds upon prior research showing promising findings of the community reinforcement approach (CRA) (Slesnick, Prestopnik, Meyers, & Glassman, 2007). Homeless adolescents and young adults between the ages of 14 to 20 years were randomized to one of three theoretically distinct interventions: (1) CRA (n = 93), (2) motivational enhancement therapy (MET, n = 86), or (3) case management (CM, n = 91). The relative effectiveness of these interventions was evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months post-baseline. Findings indicated that substance use and associated problems were significantly reduced in all three interventions across time. Several moderating effects were found, especially for sex and history of childhood abuse. Findings show little evidence of superiority or inferiority of the three interventions and suggest that drop-in centers have choices for addressing the range of problems that these adolescents and young adults face.

Efficacy of ecologically-based treatment with substance-abusing homeless mothers: substance use and housing outcomes

This randomized pilot study tested the efficacy of an integrative treatment targeting homeless substance abusing mothers with young children in their care. Sixty mothers with 2-6 year old children were recruited from a local family shelter. The mothers were randomly assigned to Ecologically-Based Treatment (n=30) or treatment as usual (n=30). The intervention group received 3 months of rental and utility assistance up to $600 per month, case management services, and substance abuse counseling (referred to as supportive services). The treatment as usual group received housing and services through the family shelter and community housing programs. All participants completed follow-up assessments at 3, 6, and 9 months post-baseline. Mothers receiving Ecologically-Based Treatment showed a quicker decline in alcohol frequency and a quicker increase in housing stability. Furthermore, with supportive services, two-thirds of women were successful in maintaining their apartments 6 months after rental assistance ended.

Risk adjustment of heroin treatment outcomes for comparative performance assessment in England

AIMS

Variability in effectiveness of treatment for substance abuse disorder (SUD) is an important and understudied issue. This study aimed to quantify the extent of outcome variability in the English SUD treatment system after adjusting for potential confounding variables.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study using data from the English national drug treatment outcome monitoring database.

SETTING

All 149 administrative areas delivering publicly funded SUD services in the National Health Service and non-governmental sector.

PARTICIPANTS

New adult admissions between January 2008 and October 2010 with illicit heroin-related problems in all administrative areas, with an in-treatment review conducted between 5 and 26 weeks (mean = 129.5 days; SD = 40.0) up to 30 April 2011 (n = 65 223; 75.6% of eligible clients). Individuals were divided randomly to form model developmental and internal validation samples. These were contrasted with an independent (external) sample of the same population admitted to treatment between November 2010 and April 2011 and followed to 31 October 2011 (n = 13 797; 81.4% of those eligible).

MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

The outcome measure was self-reported illicit heroin use, categorized as abstinent or deteriorated (the latter by Reliable Change Index), each risk-adjusted by person-level (demographics, clinical severity and treatment complexity) and area-level (SUD prevalence, social deprivation and severity averages) covariates by multivariable logistic regression using multiply imputed outcome and covariate data. Risk-adjusted models were assessed by information criteria and discrimination (c-index). Standardized outcome rates were compared by funnel plot with 95% and 99% control limits.

FINDINGS

Models of heroin abstinence (48.4%) and deterioration (3.2%) were comparable across the developmental and validation samples (c-index = 0.70-0.71 and 0.82-0.87), with 79.2 and 94.0%, respectively, of the 149 treatment areas falling within 95% control limits. At the 99% limit, seven areas (4.7%) achieved abstinence rates above the national average, and eight had relatively poor abstinence rates (5.4%). At the 99% control limit, one area achieved very low deterioration outcomes and two (1.3%) were worse that the average. Risk adjustment served to increase abstinence rates in good performing areas by 0.63% and reduce abstinence rates by 0.37% in poor performing areas, and by 0.12% and 0.18%, respectively, for deterioration.

CONCLUSION

There is some exceptional variability in the apparent effectiveness of the English treatment system for substance use disorders. It is important to determine the source of this variability in order to inform drug treatment delivery and its evaluation both in England and overseas.

Abstinence-contingent recovery housing and reinforcement-based treatment following opioid detoxification

AIMS

To conduct a randomized, controlled trial of abstinence-contingent recovery housing delivered with or without intensive day treatment among individuals exiting residential opioid detoxification.

DESIGN

Random assignment to one of three conditions: recovery housing alone (RH), abstinence-contingent recovery housing with reinforcement-based treatment RBT (RH + RBT) or usual care (UC). RH and RH + RBT participants received 12 weeks of paid recovery housing contingent upon drug abstinence. RH + RBT participants also received 26 weeks of RBT, initiated concurrently with recovery housing. Assessments were conducted at 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment enrollment.

SETTING

Out-patient drug-free substance abuse treatment program in Baltimore, Maryland.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients (n = 243) who completed medication-assisted opioid detoxification.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcome was drug abstinence (opioid- and cocaine-negative urine and no self-reported opioid or cocaine use in the previous 30 days). Secondary outcomes included abstinence at all time-points (1, 3 and 6 months), days in recovery housing and employment.

FINDINGS

Overall rates of drug abstinence were 50% for RH + RBT, 37% for RH and 13% for UC (P < 0.001). At 6 months, RH + RBT participants remained more likely to meet abstinence criteria than UC participants (37% versus 20%, P = 0.016). Length of stay in recovery housing mediated abstinence outcomes and was longer in RH + RBT (49.5 days) than in RH (32.2 days; P < 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Abstinence-contingent recovery housing improves abstinence in opioid-dependent adults following medication-assisted detoxification. The addition of intensive 'reinforcement-based treatment' behavioural counseling further improves treatment outcomes, in part by promoting longer recovery house stays.

Intervention for homeless, substance abusing mothers: findings from a non-randomized pilot

Little empirically-based information is available regarding how best to intervene with substance-abusing homeless mothers. This study pilot-tested a comprehensive intervention with 15 homeless women and their 2- to 6-year-old children, recruited from a local family shelter. All participants were offered integrated intervention with three major components. The first component was housing which included 3 months of rental and utility assistance, and these services were not contingent upon women's abstinence from drugs or alcohol. The second and third components included 6 months of case management services and an evidence-based substance abuse treatment (Community Reinforcement Approach; CRA). Analysis revealed that women showed reductions in substance use (F(2,22) = 3.63; p < .05), homelessness (F(2,24) = 25.31; p < .001), and mental health problems (F(2,20) = 8.5; p < .01). Further, women reported reduced internalizing (F(2,22) = 4.08; p < .05) and externalizing problems (F(2,24) = 7.7; p = .01) among their children. The findings suggest that the intervention is a promising approach to meet the multiple needs of this vulnerable population. These positive outcomes support the need for future research to replicate the findings with a larger sample using a randomized design.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review

BACKGROUND

Research on interventions to positively impact health and housing status of people who are homeless has received substantially increased attention over the past 5 years. This rapid review examines recent evidence regarding interventions that have been shown to improve the health of homeless people, with particular focus on the effect of these interventions on housing status.

METHODS

A total of 1,546 articles were identified by a structured search of five electronic databases, a hand search of grey literature and relevant journals, and contact with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the first 10% of titles and abstracts for relevance. Inter-rater reliability was high and as a result only one reviewer screened the remaining titles and abstracts. Articles were included if they were published between January 2004 and December 2009 and examined the effectiveness of an intervention to improve the health or healthcare utilization of people who were homeless, marginally housed, or at risk of homelessness. Two reviewers independently scored all relevant articles for quality.

RESULTS

Eighty-four relevant studies were identified; none were of strong quality while ten were rated of moderate quality. For homeless people with mental illness, provision of housing upon hospital discharge was effective in improving sustained housing. For homeless people with substance abuse issues or concurrent disorders, provision of housing was associated with decreased substance use, relapses from periods of substance abstinence, and health services utilization, and increased housing tenure. Abstinent dependent housing was more effective in supporting housing status, substance abstinence, and improved psychiatric outcomes than non-abstinence dependent housing or no housing. Provision of housing also improved health outcomes among homeless populations with HIV. Health promotion programs can decrease risk behaviours among homeless populations.

CONCLUSIONS

These studies provide important new evidence regarding interventions to improve health, housing status, and access to healthcare for homeless populations. The additional studies included in this current review provide further support for earlier evidence which found that coordinated treatment programs for homeless persons with concurrent mental illness and substance misuse issues usually result in better health and access to healthcare than usual care. This review also provides a synthesis of existing evidence regarding interventions that specifically support homeless populations with HIV.

Addiction treatment and stable housing among a cohort of injection drug users

Background

Unstable housing and homelessness is prevalent among injection drug users (IDU). We sought to examine whether accessing addiction treatment was associated with attaining stable housing in a prospective cohort of IDU in Vancouver, Canada.

Methods

We used data collected via the Vancouver Injection Drug User Study (VIDUS) between December 2005 and April 2010. Attaining stable housing was defined as two consecutive “stable housing” designations (i.e., living in an apartment or house) during the follow-up period. We assessed exposure to addiction treatment in the interview prior to the attainment of stable housing among participants who were homeless or living in single room occupancy (SRO) hotels at baseline. Bivariate and multivariate associations between the baseline and time-updated characteristics and attaining stable housing were examined using Cox proportional hazard regression models.

Principal Findings

Of the 992 IDU eligible for this analysis, 495 (49.9%) reported being homeless, 497 (50.1%) resided in SRO hotels, and 380 (38.3%) were enrolled in addiction treatment at the baseline interview. Only 211 (21.3%) attained stable housing during the follow-up period and of this group, 69 (32.7%) had addiction treatment exposure prior to achieving stable housing. Addiction treatment was inversely associated with attaining stable housing in a multivariate model (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]  = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.52–0.96). Being in a partnered relationship was positively associated with the primary outcome (AHR  = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.02–1.88). Receipt of income assistance (AHR  = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.44–0.96), daily crack use (AHR  = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.51–0.93) and daily heroin use (AHR  = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.43–0.92) were negatively associated with attaining stable housing.

Conclusions

Exposure to addiction treatment in our study was negatively associated with attaining stable housing and may have represented a marker of instability among this sample of IDU. Efforts to stably house this vulnerable group may be occurring in contexts outside of addiction treatment.

Employment services utilization and outcomes among substance abusing offenders participating in California's proposition 36 drug treatment initiative

California drug treatment programs may use funds to address barriers to work faced by Proposition 36 offenders, most of whom are not working at treatment entry, but employment services utilization and related behavioral outcomes have never been studied. This study examined primary data collected on 1,453 offenders by 30 programs during 2004 to explore the characteristics, employment services utilization, and outcomes of those who did and did not receive employment services while in drug treatment. One-year outcomes were mostly similar across groups, however, increases in the proportion of offenders employed, receiving income from employment and family or friends, and being paid for work were significantly greater among the received-employment-services group, and a greater proportion of this group also completed drug treatment. Employment services utilization was less likely for persons recruited from outpatient settings and more likely with greater severity of family/social problems and desire for services. Odds of employment one-year post-treatment entry were higher for those of Hispanic race/ethnicity (vs. White) and for those with treatment completion/longer retention but lower for those who were older, lived in specific counties, had greater employment problem severity at intake, and received other income-related services. Strategies for improving employment services utilization and outcomes among Proposition 36 offenders are discussed.

Housing first for homeless persons with active addiction: are we overreaching?

CONTEXT

More than 350 communities in the United States have committed to ending chronic homelessness. One nationally prominent approach, Housing First, offers early access to permanent housing without requiring completion of treatment or, for clients with addiction, proof of sobriety.

METHODS

This article reviews studies of Housing First and more traditional rehabilitative (e.g., "linear") recovery interventions, focusing on the outcomes obtained by both approaches for homeless individuals with addictive disorders.

FINDINGS

According to reviews of comparative trials and case series reports, Housing First reports document excellent housing retention, despite the limited amount of data pertaining to homeless clients with active and severe addiction. Several linear programs cite reductions in addiction severity but have shortcomings in long-term housing success and retention.

CONCLUSIONS

This article suggests that the current research data are not sufficient to identify an optimal housing and rehabilitation approach for an important homeless subgroup. The research regarding Housing First and linear approaches can be strengthened in several ways, and policymakers should be cautious about generalizing the results of available Housing First studies to persons with active addiction when they enter housing programs.