Consumer preference programs for individuals who are homeless and have psychiatric disabilities: a drop-in center and a supported housing program

Beyond Supported Housing: Correlates of Improvements in Quality of Life Among Homeless Adults with Mental Illness

BACKGROUND

The goal of supported housing, aside from exiting homelessness, is to improve overall quality of life. The contribution of factors that enhance quality of life in supported housing programs, beyond housing itself, have not been empirically identified.

METHODS

Five-year follow-up data from two arms of a randomized trial comparing case management with and without housing vouchers (n = 278) were examined to identify correlates of improved quality of life, beyond housing resources.

RESULTS

Access to a housing contributed to 4% of the variance in improved quality of life. Improvement in psychiatric symptoms, alcohol and drug use, employment, total income, and social support were associated with an additional 34-43% of variance in improved quality of life above and beyond housing.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in quality of life were more strongly associated with improvements in mental health and other aspects of social well-being than housing alone.

Diving into Social Innovation: A Bibliometric Analysis

This paper aims to map and analyze the scientific production of social innovation, resulting in a contribution to the literature review and guidelines for future research. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to explore the trends on the topic. The primary objectives are (1) to identify how the literature defines the concept of social innovation and to track its evolution; (2) to measure productivity and identify key authors and scientific journals with the highest impact in the field and the association networks between their respective institutions and countries of origin; (3) to analyze and map citations, co-citations, and research topics to pinpoint the topics and dimensions related to social innovation in order to propose future research. Our paper clarifies the concept of social innovation, reports the progresses achieved within this research field, and measures the productivity on this specific topic.

Impact of Housing First on Psychiatric Symptoms, Substance Use, and Everyday Life Skills Among People Experiencing Homelessness

The current unblinded, randomized controlled trial analyzed psychiatric symptoms, substance use, and life skills outcomes in participants after 21 months in the Housing First (HF) program. The HF group (intervention) comprised 46 participants and the treatment-as-usual (TAU) group (control) comprised 41 participants. Quantitative outcome measures were collected at baseline and 8 and 21 months. Primary outcomes were mental health and substance use. Secondary outcomes were everyday life skills. Descriptive and comparative analyses and linear regression models are presented. At 21 months, the HF group presented significantly better outcomes regarding alcohol and cannabis use than the TAU group. Moreover, the subgroup of HF participants with severe mental illness had significant improvements in psychotic symptoms, anxiety, depression, social relations, and cannabis use compared to TAU participants. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, xx(x), xx-xx.].

Implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic for Youth Housing and Homelessness Services

Youth homelessness is a growing crisis in the United States that is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. A variety of social service programs exist to address youth homelessness and its consequences, such as street outreach and diversion services, emergency shelters, transitional housing programs, and rapid rehousing services, among others. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reached the United States in early 2020, altering nearly every facet of daily life, including the way social service organizations structure and deliver their programming. To understand the implications of the pandemic on housing and homelessness services for youth, the current study examines data from interviews conducted with staff from a large non-profit in Austin, Texas, serving vulnerable transition-age youth. Through these interviews, programmatic changes that occurred as a result of COVID-19-as well as challenges and facilitators to service delivery-were identified. This article provides an overview of these key learnings, as well as recommendations derived from these key learnings, for other organizations adapting their housing and homelessness services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Opioid use disorder treatment for people experiencing homelessness: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The opioid-related overdose epidemic remains a persistent public health problem in the United States and has been accelerated by the 2019 coronavirus disease pandemic. Existing, evidence-based treatment options for opioid use disorder (OUD) are broadly underutilized, particularly by people experiencing homelessness (PEH). PEH are also more likely to misuse and overdose on opioids. To better understand current gaps and disparities in OUD treatment experienced by PEH and efforts to address them, we synthesized the literature reporting on the intersection of housing status and OUD treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of the literature from the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection. We included studies describing treatment-related outcomes specific to PEH and articles assessing OUD treatment interventions tailored to this population. Relevant findings were compiled via thematic analysis and narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

60 articles met our inclusion criteria, including 43 descriptive and 17 intervention-focused studies. These studies demonstrated that PEH experience more barriers to OUD treatment than their housed counterparts and access inpatient and detoxification treatment more commonly than pharmacotherapy. However, the reviewed literature indicated that PEH have similar outcomes once engaged in pharmacotherapy. Efficacious interventions for PEH were low-barrier and targeted, with housing interventions also demonstrating benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

PEH have diminished access to evidence-based OUD treatment, particularly medications, and require targeted approaches to improve engagement and retention. To mitigate the disproportionate opioid-related morbidity and mortality PEH experience, innovative, flexible, and interdisciplinary OUD treatment models are necessary, with housing support playing an important role.

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.

Seeking shelter: homelessness and COVID-19

Those experiencing homelessness in Canada are impacted inequitably by COVID-19 due to their increased exposure, vulnerability of environment and medical comorbidities, and their lack of access to preventive care and treatment in the context of the pandemic. In shelter environments one is unable to effectively physically distance, maintain hygiene, obtain a test, or isolate. As a result, unique strategies are required for this population to protect them and those who serve them. Recommendations are provided to reduce or prevent further negative consequences from the COVID-19 pandemic for people experiencing homelessness. These recommendations were informed by a systematic review of the literature, as well as a jurisdictional scan. Where evidence did not exist, expert consensus from key providers and those experiencing homelessness throughout Canada was included. These recommendations recognize the need for short-term interventions to mitigate the immediate risk to this community, including coordination of response, appropriate precautions and protective equipment, reducing congestion, cohorting, testing, case and contact management strategies, dealing with outbreaks, isolation centres, and immunization. Longer-term recommendations are also provided with a view to ending homelessness by addressing the root causes of homelessness and by the provision of adequate subsidized and supportive housing through a Housing First strategy. It is imperative that meaningful changes take place now in how we serve those experiencing homelessness and how we mitigate specific vulnerabilities. These recommendations call for intersectoral, collaborative engagement to work for solutions targeted towards protecting the most vulnerable within our community through both immediate actions and long-term planning to eliminate homelessness.

Effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions for homeless individuals in high-income countries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Permanent supportive housing and income assistance are valuable interventions for homeless individuals. Homelessness can reduce physical and social wellbeing, presenting public health risks for infectious diseases, disability, and death. We did a systematic review, meta-analysis, and narrative synthesis to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of permanent supportive housing and income interventions on the health and social wellbeing of individuals who are homeless in high-income countries.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos, NIHR-HTA, NHS EED, DARE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to Feb 10, 2020, for studies on permanent supportive housing and income interventions for homeless populations. We included only randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cost-effectiveness studies from high-income countries that reported at least one outcome of interest (housing stability, mental health, quality of life, substance use, hospital admission, earned income, or employment). We screened studies using a standardised data collection form and pooled data from published studies. We synthesised results using random effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis. We assessed certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 15 908 citations, of which 72 articles were included for analysis (15 studies on permanent supportive housing across 41 publications, ten studies on income interventions across 15 publications, and 21 publications on cost or cost-effectiveness). Permanent supportive housing interventions increased long-term (6 year) housing stability for participants with moderate support needs (one study; rate ratio [RR] 1·13 [95% CI 1·01-1·26]) and high support needs (RR 1·42 [1·19-1·69]) when compared with usual care. Permanent supportive housing had no measurable effect on the severity of psychiatric symptoms (ten studies), substance use (nine studies), income (two studies), or employment outcomes (one study) when compared with usual social services. Income interventions, particularly housing subsidies with case management, showed long-term improvements in the number of days stably housed (one study; mean difference at 3 years between intervention and usual services 8·58 days; p<0·004), whereas the effects on mental health and employment outcomes were unclear.

INTERPRETATION

Permanent supportive housing and income assistance interventions were effective in reducing homelessness and achieving housing stability. Future research should focus on the long-term effects of housing and income interventions on physical and mental health, substance use, and quality-of-life outcomes.

FUNDING

Inner City Health Associates.

The Effectiveness of Mental Health Rehabilitation Services: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis

Introduction: Mental health rehabilitation services provide essential support to people with complex and longer term mental health problems. They include inpatient services and community teams providing clinical input to people living in supported accommodation services. This systematic review included international studies evaluating the effectiveness of inpatient and community rehabilitation services. Methods: We searched six online databases for quantitative studies evaluating mental health rehabilitation services that reported on one or both of two outcomes: move-on to a more independent setting (i.e. discharge from an inpatient unit to the community or from a higher to lower level of supported accommodation); inpatient service use. The search was further expanded by screening references and citations of included studies. Heterogeneity between studies was too great to allow meta-analysis and therefore a narrative synthesis was carried out. Results: We included a total of 65 studies, grouped as: contemporary mental health rehabilitation services (n = 34); services for homeless people with severe mental health problems (n = 13); deinstitutionalization programmes (n = 18). The strongest evidence was for services for homeless people. Access to inpatient rehabilitation services was associated with a reduction in acute inpatient service use post discharge. Fewer than one half of people moved on from higher to lower levels of supported accommodation within expected timeframes. Conclusions: Inpatient and community rehabilitation services may reduce the need for inpatient service use over the long term but more high quality research of contemporary rehabilitation services with comparison groups is required. Review registration: This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019133579).

Using PhotoVoice to Understand Health Determinants of Formerly Homeless Individuals Living in Permanent Housing in Detroit

Housing First is an evidence-based approach to addressing chronic homelessness that provides permanent, low-barrier housing. Previous literature on the health of tenants of Housing First programs has primarily focused on mental health, substance use, and health care. Using the social-ecological model, we conducted a community-based participatory research (CBPR) PhotoVoice study to better understand what Housing First residents in Detroit identify as factors that impact their health. Seventeen participants were provided cameras and photography training and asked to take photos on the theme "What impacts your health and wellness?" Group sessions were held to discuss photos. Results were organized into four themes: (a) loss of jobs hurts people and communities; (b) blight, more than just abandoned buildings; (c) being pushed out by development; and (d) experiencing the "battlefield" versus feeling peaceful. The social-ecological model was used to indicate potential interventions indicated by study findings.

How to help homeless youth suffering from first episode psychosis and substance use disorders? The creation of a new intensive outreach intervention team

In Canada, about 6,000 youth are homeless every night, many of whom suffer from addiction and psychotic disorders. To facilitate the exit out of homelessness, access to care and to improve psychosis and addiction outcomes, a new intensive outreach intervention team (EQIIP SOL) was created in Montreal (2012). It offers intensive outreach services dedicated to homeless youth suffering from first episode psychosis and addiction (HYFEPA) in addition to an early psychosis intervention service (EIS) in collaboration with the Addiction Psychiatry Unit. Our aim is to describe the characteristics, clinical, functional and housing outcomes of HYFEPA followed by EQIIP SOL. This two years long prospective longitudinal study with all HYFEPA (n = 42) admitted to EQIIP SOL between 2012-2015 reports at multiple time points, clinical (CGI, GAF), functional (SOFAS, work/study, housing autonomy) and substance use disorder (DUS, AUS) outcomes and acute services use (hospitalizations, emergency room visits). We observed that, at baseline, HYFEPA showed poor prognostic factors (eg. cluster B personality, substance use disorders, legal problems, childhood trauma and lower education level). The majority reached housing stability after 6 months and their functioning and illness severity improved with time. This suggests that HYFEPA improve with an intensive outreach intervention team integrated to an EIS.

Models of Housing in the Quebec Setting for Individuals With Mental Illness

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines mental health as "a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community". A person's mental health is shaped by various social, economic, physical, and environmental factors, at different stages of life. Risk factors are heavily associated with social inequalities in the domains of employment, housing, and education. Theories of social determinants of health postulate the beneficial effects of factors exterior to medicine (regarding income, housing, education, and employment) on the health of individuals and populations. Recognition of the effect of social determinants on the health of vulnerable populations has been at the core of the intervention models and housing services developed by social service professionals in Québec. This article offers a review of housing services provided to psychiatric patients living in the community, over the last 50 years in Quebec. Different models of housing with social support which contribute to the autonomy, the security, and the empowerment of psychiatric patients are presented.

Care avoidance among homeless people and access to care: an interview study among spiritual caregivers, street pastors, homeless outreach workers and formerly homeless people

BACKGROUND

Because of their poor health and social vulnerability, homeless people require specific care. However, due to care avoidance, homeless people are often not involved in care. This study aims to get insights into reasons for and kinds of care avoidance among homeless people and to provide suggestions to reach this target group.

METHODS

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted among street pastors (n = 9), spiritual caregivers (n = 9), homeless outreach workers (n = 7) and formerly homeless people (n = 3). Participants were recruited by purposive sampling in the four major cities in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam, The Hague). The verbatim transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The term care avoidance was perceived as stigmatizing. Care avoidance is found to be related to characteristics of the homeless person (e.g. having complex problems, other priorities) as well as of the system (e.g. complex system, conditions and requirements of organizations). The person-related characteristics suggestions to involve homeless persons include tailoring care and building relationships, which might even be prioritised over starting care interventions. Setting limits on behaviour without rejecting the person, and an attitude reflecting humanity, dignity and equality were also important factors in making care more accessible and lasting. As regards system-related characteristics, the suggestions include clear information and communication to homeless people who avoid care as being crucial in order to make care more accessible. Other suggestions include quiet and less busy shelters, a non-threatening attitude and treatment by professionals, self-reflection by professionals and finally a change of policy and legislation regarding available time.

CONCLUSIONS

Reasons for care avoidance can be found in the interplay between both the individual and the system; measures to reduce care avoidance should be taken at both levels. These measures are centred on lowering the barriers to care inter alia by incorporating building trust and understanding into the care provided.

How do Housing Subsidies Improve Quality of Life Among Homeless Adults? A Mediation Analysis

Supported housing, combining rent subsidies with intensive case management, is associated with improvements in quality of life of homeless adults, but factors mediating their impact on quality of life have not been studied. Twelve-month outcome data from a randomized trial of the Housing and Urban Development- Veterans Affairs Supported Housing program (HUD-VASH) showed that access to a housing rent subsidy plus intensive case management (ICM) was associated with greater improvement in subjective quality of life than ICM alone. Multiple mediation analyses were applied to identify variables that significantly mediated the relationship between receipt of housing voucher and improvements in quality of life. Significant mediating covariates were those whose 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals, when added to the model predicting improvement in quality of life, did not overlap zero. Increases in the number of days housed, size of social network, and availability of emotional support appear to mediate improvement in quality of life and account for 71% of the benefit attributable to having a rent subsidy. Improvement in subjective quality of life though housing subsidies is mediated by gains in both material and psychosocial factors. Mediating factors deserve special attention in supported housing services.

Mental health supported accommodation services: a systematic review of mental health and psychosocial outcomes

BACKGROUND

Post-deinstitutionalisation, mental health supported accommodation services have been implemented widely. The available research evidence is heterogeneous in nature and resistant to synthesis attempts, leaving researchers and policy makers with no clear summary what works and for whom. In this context, we undertook a comprehensive systematic review of quantitative studies in order to synthesise the current evidence on mental health and psychosocial outcomes for individuals residing in mental health supported accommodation services.

METHODS

Using a combination of electronic database searches, hand searches, forward-backward snowballing and article recommendations from an expert panel, 115 papers were identified for review. Data extraction and quality assessments were conducted, and 33 articles were excluded due to low quality, leaving 82 papers in the final review. Variation in terminology and service characteristics made the comparison of service models unfeasible. As such, findings were presented according to the following sub-groups: 'Homeless', 'Deinstitutionalisation' and 'General Severe Mental Illness (SMI)'.

RESULTS

Results were mixed, reflecting the heterogeneity of the supported accommodation literature, in terms of research quality, experimental design, population, service types and outcomes assessed. There is some evidence that supported accommodation is effective across a range of psychosocial outcomes. The most robust evidence supports the effectiveness of the permanent supported accommodation model for homeless SMI in generating improvements in housing retention and stability, and appropriate use of clinical services over time, and for other forms of supported accommodation for deinstitutionalised populations in reducing hospitalisation rates and improving appropriate service use. The evidence base for general SMI populations is less developed, and requires further research.

CONCLUSIONS

A lack of high-quality experimental studies, definitional inconsistency and poor reporting continue to stymie our ability to identify effective supported accommodation models and practices. The authors recommend improved reporting standards and the prioritisation of experimental studies that compare outcomes across different service models.

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.

What Works? Toward a New Classification System for Mental Health Supported Accommodation Services: The Simple Taxonomy for Supported Accommodation (STAX-SA)

Inconsistent terminology and variation in service models have made synthesis of the supported accommodation literature challenging. To overcome this, we developed a brief, categorical taxonomy that aimed to capture the defining features of different supported accommodation models: the simple taxonomy for supported accommodation (STAX-SA). Data from a previous review of existing classification systems were used to develop the taxonomy structure. After initial testing and amendments, the STAX-SA and an existing taxonomy were applied to 132 supported accommodation service descriptions drawn from two systematic reviews and their performance compared. To assess external validity, the STAX-SA was distributed to a sample of supported accommodation managers in England and they were asked to use it to classify their services. The final version of the STAX-SA comprised of five supported accommodation 'types', based on four domains; Staffing location; Level of support; Emphasis on move-on; and Physical setting. The STAX-SA accurately categorized 71.1% (n = 94) of service descriptions, outperforming the comparison tool, and was not affected by publication date or research design. The STAX-SA effectively discriminated between 'real world' service models in England and 53.2% (n = 17) of service managers indicated that the taxonomy was 'Very effective' or 'Extremely effective' in capturing key characteristics of their service. The STAX-SA is an effective tool for classifying supported accommodation models and represents a promising approach to synthesizing the extant effectiveness literature. The authors recommend the development of reporting guidelines for future supported accommodation publications to facilitate comparison between models.

Identifying variability in permanent supportive housing: A comparative effectiveness approach to measuring health outcomes

Supportive housing has become the dominant model in the United States to provide housing to the chronically homeless and to improve their housing stability and health. Most supportive housing programs follow a "housing first" paradigm modeled after the Pathways to Housing program in New York City. However, components of housing first supportive housing models were poorly defined, and supportive models have varied considerably in their dissemination and implementation to other parts of the country. Recently, research has been conducted to determine the fidelity by which specific housing programs adhere to the Pathways Housing First model. However, evidence regarding which combination of components leads to better health outcomes for particular subpopulations is lacking. This article presents results from qualitative interviews with supportive housing providers in the Chicago, Illinois, metropolitan area. Supportive housing varied according to housing configuration (scattered-site vs. project-based) and service provision model (low-intensity case management, intensive case management and behavioral health), resulting in 6 basic types. Supportive housing programs also differed in services they provided in addition to case management and the extent to which they followed harm-reduction versus abstinence policies. Results showed advantages and disadvantages of each of the 6 basic types. Comparative effectiveness research may help identify which program components lead to better health outcomes among different subpopulations of homeless. Future longitudinal research will use the identified typology and other factors to compare the housing stability and health outcomes of supportive housing residents in programs that differ along these dimensions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community-based package of care aiming to provide long-term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. Intensive Case Management evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (fewer than 20) and high-intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of ICM as a means of caring for severely mentally ill people in the community in comparison with non-ICM (caseload greater than 20) and with standard community care. We did not distinguish between models of ICM. In addition, to assess whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation (mean number of days per month in hospital) is influenced by the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and by the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted (baseline level of hospital use).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last update search 10 April 2015).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community care setting, where ICM is compared to non-ICM or standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed quality, and extracted data. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data, we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect. We assessed overall quality for clinically important outcomes using the GRADE approach and investigated possible risk of bias within included trials.

MAIN RESULTS

The 2016 update included two more studies (n = 196) and more publications with additional data for four already included studies. The updated review therefore includes 7524 participants from 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We found data relevant to two comparisons: ICM versus standard care, and ICM versus non-ICM. The majority of studies had a high risk of selective reporting. No studies provided data for relapse or important improvement in mental state.1. ICM versus standard careWhen ICM was compared with standard care for the outcome service use, ICM slightly reduced the number of days in hospital per month (n = 3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.34,low-quality evidence). Similarly, for the outcome global state, ICM reduced the number of people leaving the trial early (n = 1798, 13 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79, low-quality evidence). For the outcome adverse events, the evidence showed that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.51, low-quality evidence). In addition, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment due to very low-quality evidence (n = 1129, 4 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.0, very low-quality evidence).2. ICM versus non-ICMWhen ICM was compared with non-ICM for the outcome service use, there was moderate-quality evidence that ICM probably makes little or no difference in the average number of days in hospital per month (n = 2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.21, moderate-quality evidence) or in the average number of admissions (n = 678, 1 RCT, MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.05, moderate-quality evidence) compared to non-ICM. Similarly, the results showed that ICM may reduce the number of participants leaving the intervention early (n = 1970, 7 RCTs, RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95,low-quality evidence) and that ICM may make little or no difference in reducing death by suicide (n = 1152, 3 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.84, low-quality evidence). Finally, for the outcome social functioning, there was uncertainty about the effect of ICM on unemployment as compared to non-ICM (n = 73, 1 RCT, RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.74, very low-quality evidence).3. Fidelity to ACTWithin the meta-regression we found that i.) the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii.) the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but the 'baseline hospital use' result still significantly influences time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.07, P = 0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low- to moderate-quality evidence, ICM is effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illness. Compared to standard care, ICM may reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. Intensive Case Management is at least valuable to people with severe mental illnesses in the subgroup of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about four days per month in past two years). Intensive Case Management models with high fidelity to the original team organisation of ACT model were more effective at reducing time in hospital.However, it is unclear what overall gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, however we currently know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care, and this should be undertaken.

Methods for Influencing Social Policy: The Role of Social Experiments

Research methods in community psychology have grown more diverse since the Swampscott conference, but rigorous social experiments maintain a place among the multiplicity of methods that can promote community psychology values. They are particularly influential in policy circles. Two examples of social experiments to end homelessness for different populations illustrate their role. Both studies show that offering extremely poor and disenfranchised people autonomy and the resources they seek works better than "helping" them to overcome deficits in ways designed by well-meaning service providers. Experiments are neither the first nor the last method community psychologists should employ, but are a critical part of the field's armamentarium for systems change.

Perceived Challenges to the Sustainability of Community-Based Aging Initiatives: Findings from a National Study of Villages

Concerns have been raised regarding the sustainability of Villages, a rapidly-expanding set of organizations that typically use a participant-directed approach to improve older adults' quality of life and ability to age in place. Using online survey and telephone-interview data from a 2013 follow-up study of Villages across the United States, this study examined organizational leaders' perceptions of the major challenges to sustainability. Major challenges identified included: (a) funding, (b) membership recruitment, (c) leadership development, (d) meeting members' service needs, and (e) limitations of the Village model itself. Findings point to a number of important considerations for the development, implementation, and sustainability of the Village model, including the role of social workers in addressing these challenges.

Effectiveness of Housing First with Intensive Case Management in an Ethnically Diverse Sample of Homeless Adults with Mental Illness: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Housing First (HF) is being widely disseminated in efforts to end homelessness among homeless adults with psychiatric disabilities. This study evaluates the effectiveness of HF with Intensive Case Management (ICM) among ethnically diverse homeless adults in an urban setting. 378 participants were randomized to HF with ICM or treatment-as-usual (TAU) in Toronto (Canada), and followed for 24 months. Measures of effectiveness included housing stability, physical (EQ5D-VAS) and mental (CSI, GAIN-SS) health, social functioning (MCAS), quality of life (QoLI20), and health service use. Two-thirds of the sample (63%) was from racialized groups and half (50%) were born outside Canada. Over the 24 months of follow-up, HF participants spent a significantly greater percentage of time in stable residences compared to TAU participants (75.1% 95% CI 70.5 to 79.7 vs. 39.3% 95% CI 34.3 to 44.2, respectively). Similarly, community functioning (MCAS) improved significantly from baseline in HF compared to TAU participants (change in mean difference = +1.67 95% CI 0.04 to 3.30). There was a significant reduction in the number of days spent experiencing alcohol problems among the HF compared to TAU participants at 24 months (ratio of rate ratios = 0.47 95% CI 0.22 to 0.99) relative to baseline, a reduction of 53%. Although the number of emergency department visits and days in hospital over 24 months did not differ significantly between HF and TAU participants, fewer HF participants compared to TAU participants had 1 or more hospitalizations during this period (70.4% vs. 81.1%, respectively; P=0.044). Compared to non-racialized HF participants, racialized HF participants saw an increase in the amount of money spent on alcohol (change in mean difference = $112.90 95% CI 5.84 to 219.96) and a reduction in physical community integration (ratio of rate ratios = 0.67 95% CI 0.47 to 0.96) from baseline to 24 months. Secondary analyses found a significant reduction in the number of days experiencing problems due to alcohol use among foreign-born (vs. Canadian-born) HF participants at 24 months (ratio of rate ratios = 0.19 95% 0.04 to 0.88), relative to baseline. Compared to usual care, HF with ICM can improve housing stability and community functioning and reduce the days of alcohol related problems in an ethnically diverse sample of homeless adults with mental illness within 2-years.

Health interventions for people who are homeless

Homelessness has serious implications for the health of individuals and populations. Primary health-care programmes specifically tailored to homeless individuals might be more effective than standard primary health care. Standard case management, assertive community treatment, and critical time intervention are effective models of mental health-care delivery. Housing First, with immediate provision of housing in independent units with support, improves outcomes for individuals with serious mental illnesses. Many different types of interventions, including case management, are effective in the reduction of substance misuse. Interventions that provide case management and supportive housing have the greatest effect when they target individuals who are the most intensive users of services. Medical respite programmes are an effective intervention for homeless patients leaving the hospital. Although the scientific literature provides guidance on interventions to improve the health of homeless individuals, health-care providers should also seek to address social policies and structural factors that result in homelessness.

Understanding Housing Delays and Relocations Within the Housing First Model

This study explores factors contributing to delays and relocations during the implementation of the Housing First model in Toronto, Ontario. While interruptions in housing tenure are expected en route to recovery and housing stability, consumer and service provider views on finding and keeping housing remain largely unknown. In-person interviews and focus groups were conducted with 48 study participants, including 23 case managers or housing workers and 25 consumers. The following three factors contributed to housing delays and transfers: (1) the effectiveness of communication and collaboration among consumers and service providers, (2) consumer-driven preferences and ambivalence, and (3) provider prioritization of consumer choice over immediate housing access. Two strategies--targeted communications and consumer engagement in housing searches--supported the housing process. Several factors affect the timing and stability of housing. Communication between and among providers and consumers, and a shared understanding of consumer choice, can further support choice and recovery.

Housing First: exploring participants' early support needs

BACKGROUND

Housing First has become a popular treatment model for homeless adults with mental illness, yet little is known about program participants' early experiences or trajectories. This study used a mixed methods design to examine participant changes in selected domains 6 months after enrollment in a Canadian field trial of Housing First.

METHODS

The study sample included 301 participants receiving the Housing First intervention at the Toronto site of the At Home/Chez Soi project. This study used a pre-post design to compare quantitative 6-month outcome data to baseline values in key domains and multivariate regression to identify baseline demographic, clinical or service use variables associated with observed changes in these domains. In addition, qualitative data exploring participant and service provider perspectives and experiences was collected via stakeholder interviews and focus groups, and analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The majority (60 to 72%) of participants followed the expected trajectory of improvement, with the remaining experiencing difficulties in community integration, mental health symptom severity, substance use, community functioning and quality of life 6 months after program enrollment. Diagnosis of psychotic disorder was associated with a reduction in quality of life from baseline to 6-months, while substance use disorders were associated with reduced mental illness symptoms and substance use related problems and an improvement in quality of life. Participants housed in independent housing at 6-months had greater improvements in community integration and quality of life, and greater reduction in mental illness symptoms, compared to those not independently housed. The quality of the working alliance was positively associated with improvements in physical and psychological community integration and quality of life. Qualitative data provided a unique window into the loneliness and isolation experienced by Housing First participants, as well as problems related to substance use and a need for life skills training and support.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional strategies can help support Housing First participants in the early stages of program participation and address potential causes of early difficulties, including lack of life skills and social isolation. This study highlights the importance of early and ongoing evaluation, monitoring and program adaptations to address consumer support needs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42520374.

Vancouver At Home: pragmatic randomized trials investigating Housing First for homeless and mentally ill adults

BACKGROUND

Individuals with mental illnesses are overrepresented among the homeless. Housing First (HF) has been shown to promote positive outcomes in this population. However, key questions remain unresolved, including: how to match support services to client needs, the benefits of housing in scattered sites versus single congregate building, and the effectiveness of HF with individuals actively using substances. The present study aimed to recruit two samples of homeless mentally ill participants who differed in the complexity of their needs. Study details, including recruitment, randomization, and follow-up, are presented.

METHODS

Eligibility was based on homeless status and current mental disorder. Participants were classified as either moderate needs (MN) or high needs (HN). Those with MN were randomized to HF with Intensive Case Management (HF-ICM) or usual care. Those with HN were randomized to HF with Assertive Community Treatment (HF-ACT), congregate housing with support, or usual care. Participants were interviewed every 3 months for 2 years. Separate consent was sought to access administrative data.

RESULTS

Participants met eligibility for either MN (n = 200) or HN (n = 297) and were randomized accordingly. Both samples were primarily male and white. Compared to participants designated MN, HN participants had higher rates of hospitalization for psychiatric reasons prior to randomization, were younger at the time of recruitment, younger when first homeless, more likely to meet criteria for substance dependence, and less likely to have completed high school. Across all study arms, between 92% and 100% of participants were followed over 24 months post-randomization. Minimal significant differences were found between study arms following randomization. 438 participants (88%) provided consent to access administrative data.

CONCLUSION

The study successfully recruited participants meeting criteria for homelessness and current mental disorder. Both MN and HN groups had high rates of substance dependence, suicidality, and physical illness. Randomization resulted in no meaningful detectable differences between study arms.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN57595077 (Vancouver at Home study: Housing First plus Assertive Community Treatment versus congregate housing plus supports versus treatment as usual) and ISRCTN66721740 (Vancouver At Home study: Housing First plus Intensive Case Management versus treatment as usual).

Variation in the implementation of California's Full Service Partnerships for persons with serious mental illness

OBJECTIVE

This study examined variation in the implementation of California's Full Service Partnerships (FSPs), which are supported housing programs that do "whatever it takes" to improve outcomes among persons with serious mental illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

DATA SOURCES/SETTING

Ninety-three FSPs in California.

STUDY DESIGN

A mixed methods approach was selected to develop a better understanding of the complexity of the FSP programs. The design structure was a combined explanatory and exploratory sequential design (qual→QUAN→qual) where a qualitative focus group was used to develop a quantitative survey that was followed by qualitative site visits. The survey was used to describe the breadth of variation based on fidelity to the Housing First model, while the site visits were used to provide a depth of information on high- versus low-fidelity programs.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We found substantial variation in implementation among FSPs. Fidelity was particularly low along domains related with housing and service philosophy, indicating that many FSPs implemented a rich array of services but applied housing readiness requirements and did not adhere to consumer choice in housing.

CONCLUSIONS

There remains room for improvement in the recovery-orientation of FSPs. Fortunately, we have identified several processes by which program managers and counties can increase the fidelity of their programs.

Implementing and Evaluating Goal Setting in a Statewide Psychiatric Rehabilitation Program

Although the idea of people with psychiatric disabilities determining their own treatment and rehabilitation goals is increasingly accepted, its relationship to service outcomes has rarely been evaluated programmatically. A statewide, Medicaid-funded psychiatric rehabilitation program incorporated a systematic goal setting procedure conducted by practitioners trained in helping people set their own individual rehabilitation goals. Individuals who successfully set either residential or employment goals were followed for up to 18 months to assess progress on these goals. Participants were grouped by type of goal (residential or employment) and by level of participation in the intervention (enrolled, completed 18 months, or graduated). Residential functioning for those who set residential goals increased significantly, independent of level of participation. For people who had set employment goals, only graduates of the intervention showed significant employment gains. Furthermore, employment functioning changed significantly when a goal was set in the residential area; in contrast, residential functioning did not change significantly when goals were set in the employment area. This study suggests that the programmatic effect of goal setting procedures can be evaluated, even when the person’s goals are tailored to an individual’s unique preference. Implications for rehabilitation counseling will be discussed.

Housing first reduces re-offending among formerly homeless adults with mental disorders: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Homelessness and mental illness have a strong association with public disorder and criminality. Experimental evidence indicates that Housing First (HF) increases housing stability and perceived choice among those experiencing chronic homelessness and mental disorders. HF is also associated with lower residential costs than common alternative approaches. Few studies have examined the effect of HF on criminal behavior.

METHODS

Individuals meeting criteria for homelessness and a current mental disorder were randomized to one of three conditions treatment as usual (reference); scattered site HF; and congregate HF. Administrative data concerning justice system events were linked in order to study prior histories of offending and to test the relationship between housing status and offending following randomization for up to two years.

RESULTS

The majority of the sample (67%) was involved with the justice system, with a mean of 8.07 convictions per person in the ten years prior to recruitment. The most common category of crime was "property offences" (mean=4.09). Following randomization, the scattered site HF condition was associated with significantly lower numbers of sentences than treatment as usual (Adjusted IRR=0.29; 95% CI 0.12-0.72). Congregate HF was associated with a marginally significant reduction in sentences compared to treatment as usual (Adjusted IRR=0.55; 95% CI: 0.26-1.14).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first randomized controlled trial to demonstrate benefits of HF among a homeless sample with mental illness in the domain of public safety and crime. Our sample was frequently involved with the justice system, with great personal and societal costs. Further implementation of HF is strongly indicated, particularly in the scattered site format. Research examining interdependencies between housing, health, and the justice system is indicated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN57595077.

Housing and harm reduction: what is the role of harm reduction in addressing homelessness?

Homelessness and drug use often overlap and the harms of substance use are exacerbated by homelessness. Responding to the twin problems of homelessness and substance use is an important aspect of strategies to end homelessness. The introduction and development of ten year plans to end homelessness in North America heralds a new era of systemic responses to homelessness. Central to many of these plans is the adoption of 'Housing First' as a policy response. Housing First focuses directly on housing people regardless of current patterns of substance use. As such, harm reduction is a key principle of Housing First. In this paper, we examine Housing First as an example of the integration of housing and harm reduction and then put forth a community level policy framework to further promote the integration of harm reduction as part of a response to homelessness. Drawing on Rhodes' risk environment framework and current evidence of Housing First and harm reduction, we describe four key policy areas for action: (1) social inclusion policies; (2) adequate and appropriate supply of housing; (3) on demand harm reduction services and supports and (4) systemic and organizational infrastructure. We conclude by identifying areas for future research.

Consumer and practitioner perceptions of the harm reduction approach in a community mental health setting

Harm reduction in community mental health settings can be effective in engaging persons with co-occurring disorders in services. In this qualitative study, personal interviews and grounded theory methods were used to explore the experiences of 21 mental health practitioners and 15 consumers with co-occurring disorders at a community mental health housing program that uses harm reduction. Results indicate that while harm reduction enhanced therapeutic alliances, ethical and emotional tensions between practitioners and consumers regarding their views on self-determination and tolerance of drug-related behaviors were also evident. These tensions are explored and implications for practice and education are provided.

Ending homelessness among people with mental illness: the At Home/Chez Soi randomized trial of a Housing First intervention in Toronto

Background

The At Home/Chez Soi (AH/CS) Project is a randomized controlled trial of a Housing First intervention to meet the needs of homeless individuals with mental illness in five cities across Canada. The objectives of this paper are to examine the approach to participant recruitment and community engagement at the Toronto site of the AH/CS Project, and to describe the baseline demographics of participants in Toronto.

Methods

Homeless individuals (n = 575) with either high needs (n = 197) or moderate needs (n = 378) for mental health support were recruited through service providers in the city of Toronto. Participants were randomized to Housing First interventions or Treatment as Usual (control) groups. Housing First interventions were offered at two different mental health service delivery levels: Assertive Community Treatment for high needs participants and Intensive Case Management for moderate needs participants. Demographic data were collected via quantitative questionnaires at baseline interviews.

Results

The effectiveness of the recruitment strategy was influenced by a carefully designed referral system, targeted recruitment of specific groups, and an extensive network of pre-existing services. Community members, potential participants, service providers, and other stakeholders were engaged through active outreach and information sessions. Challenges related to the need for different sectors to work together were resolved through team building strategies. Randomization produced similar demographic, mental health, cognitive and functional impairment characteristics in the intervention and control groups for both the high needs and moderate needs groups. The majority of participants were male (69%), aged >40 years (53%), single/never married (69%), without dependent children (71%), born in Canada (54%), and non-white (64%). Many participants had substance dependence (38%), psychotic disorder (37%), major depressive episode (36%), alcohol dependence (29%), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (23%), and mood disorder with psychotic features (21%). More than two-thirds of the participants (65%) indicated some level of suicidality.

Conclusions

Recruitment at the Toronto site of AH/CS project produced a sample of participants that reflects the diverse demographics of the target population. This study will provide much needed data on how to best address the issue of homelessness and mental illness in Canada.

Homelessness in schizophrenia

The impact of mental illness, comorbid substance abuse, and medication nonadherence, coupled with disjointed psychiatric and social services, conspires to a disproportionately high rate of psychiatric disorders among people who are homeless in the United States. This article reviews the prevalence of homeless among the mentally ill as well as the prevalence of mental illness among the homeless and details barriers in access to care and the solutions that have been attempted. The need and solutions to introduce a new generation of physicians and allied health care workers to the unique health care needs of the homeless population are highlighted.

Comparing the housing trajectories of different classes within a diverse homeless population

The paper presents findings from a longitudinal study identifying different classes of homeless individuals in a mid-size Canadian city based on health-related characteristics and comparing the housing trajectories of these classes 2 years later. Using data collected through in-person interviews with a sample of 329 single persons who have experienced homelessness, the paper presents results of a latent class analysis. Results found four distinct latent classes characterized by different levels of severity of health problems--i.e., a class of individuals who are "Higher Functioning" (28.7%), a second class with "Substance Abuse Problems" (27.1%), a third class with "Mental Health Substance Abuse Problems" (22.6%), and a fourth class with "Complex Physical and Mental Health Problems" (21.6%) that included having diminished physical functioning, multiple chronic physical health conditions, mental health difficulties, and in some cases substance abuse problems. Follow-up interviews with 197 of these individuals (59.9%) 2 years later showed the class of individuals with substance abuse problems experiencing the greatest difficulty in exiting homelessness and achieving housing stability. Implications of these findings for social policy development and program planning are discussed.

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.

The role of housing: a comparison of front-line provider views in housing first and traditional programs

PURPOSE

Within the mental health system, there are two distinct service models for adults who have severe mental illness and are homeless: one prioritizes treatment before accessing permanent housing (Treatment First) while the other provides permanent housing upfront followed by clinical support (Housing First). Investigating front-line providers working within these two models affords an opportunity to learn more about their implementation from an insider perspective, thus shedding light on whether actual practice is consistent with or contrary to these program models' contrasting philosophical values.

METHODS

Forty-one providers were recruited from four agencies as part of a NIMH funded qualitative study. Multiple, in-depth interviews lasting 30-45 min were conducted with providers that explored working within these agencies. Thematic analysis was utilized to compare the views of 20 providers working in Housing First versus the 21 providers working in Treatment First programs.

RESULTS

Providers viewed housing as a priority but differences emerged between Treatment First and Housing First providers along three major themes: the centrality of housing, engaging consumers through housing, and (limits to...) a right to housing.

CONCLUSION

Ironically, this study revealed that providers working within Treatment First programs were consumed with the pursuit of housing, whereas Housing First providers focused more on clinical concerns since consumers already had housing. Clearly, how programs position permanent housing has very different implications for how providers understand their work, the pressures they encounter, and how they prioritize client goals.

Substance use outcomes among homeless clients with serious mental illness: comparing Housing First with Treatment First programs

The Housing First (HF) approach for homeless adults with serious mental illness has gained support as an alternative to the mainstream "Treatment First" (TF) approach. In this study, group differences were assessed using qualitative data from 27 HF and 48 TF clients. Dichotomous variables for substance use and substance abuse treatment utilization were created and examined using bivariate and logistic regression analyses. The HF group had significantly lower rates of substance use and substance abuse treatment utilization; they were also significantly less likely to leave their program. Housing First's positive impact is contrasted with the difficulties Treatment First programs have in retaining clients and helping them avoid substance use and possible relapse.

Studies of "supported" and "supportive" housing: a comprehensive review of model descriptions and measurement

Supported housing is a service model that couples provision of independent housing with provision of community-based supports for individuals with psychiatric disabilities at risk of homelessness. Despite its promise as an alternative to traditional sequential residential rehabilitation programs, supported housing has not been evaluated to an extent that supports firm conclusions concerning the efficacy of specific program elements. We conducted a comprehensive review of the literature on supported housing and similarly labeled programs, to determine the degree of clarity in the supported housing model and the degree of fidelity to that model within the empirical literature, and to determine whether lack of clarity or fidelity are barriers to widespread, systematic program implementation and evaluation. We encountered a number of limitations in the literature, including conflicting use of program labels, inconsistent definitions of supported housing and its elements, and use of inadequate measurement indices in assessing adherence to program elements. Our findings suggest that greater model clarity, better specification of model elements, and greater standardization in measurement of program dimensions would aid in supported housing program implementation and evaluation. We present a number of recommendations for the field and suggestions for future research.

Intensive case management for severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Intensive Case Management (ICM) is a community based package of care, aiming to provide long term care for severely mentally ill people who do not require immediate admission. ICM evolved from two original community models of care, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) and Case Management (CM), where ICM emphasises the importance of small caseload (less than 20) and high intensity input.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of Intensive Case Management (caseload <20) in comparison with non-Intensive Case Management (caseload > 20) and with standard community care in people with severe mental illness. To evaluate whether the effect of ICM on hospitalisation depends on its fidelity to the ACT model and on the setting.

SEARCH STRATEGY

For the current update of this review we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (February 2009), which is compiled by systematic searches of major databases, hand searches and conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All relevant randomised clinical trials focusing on people with severe mental illness, aged 18 to 65 years and treated in the community-care setting, where Intensive Case Management, non-Intensive Case Management or standard care were compared. Outcomes such as service use, adverse effects, global state, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs were sought.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes we calculated relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we estimated mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% confidence interval (CI). We employed a random-effects model for analyses.We performed a random-effects meta-regression analysis to examine the association of the intervention's fidelity to the ACT model and the rate of hospital use in the setting where the trial was conducted with the treatment effect.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 38 trials (7328 participants) in this review. The trials provided data for two comparisons: 1. ICM versus standard care, 2. ICM versus non-ICM.1. ICM versus standard care Twenty-four trials provided data on length of hospitalisation, and results favoured Intensive Case Management (n=3595, 24 RCTs, MD -0.86 CI -1.37 to -0.34). There was a high level of heterogeneity, but this significance still remained when the outlier studies were excluded from the analysis (n=3143, 20 RCTs, MD -0.62 CI -1.00 to -0.23). Nine studies found participants in the ICM group were less likely to be lost to psychiatric services (n=1633, 9 RCTs, RR 0.43 CI 0.30 to 0.61, I²=49%, p=0.05).One global state scale did show an Improvement in global state for those receiving ICM, the GAF scale (n=818, 5 RCTs, MD 3.41 CI 1.66 to 5.16). Results for mental state as measured through various rating scales, however, were equivocal, with no compelling evidence that ICM was really any better than standard care in improving mental state. No differences in mortality between ICM and standard care groups occurred, either due to 'all causes' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.84 CI 0.48 to 1.47) or to 'suicide' (n=1456, 9 RCTs, RR 0.68 CI 0.31 to 1.51).Social functioning results varied, no differences were found in terms of contact with the legal system and with employment status, whereas significant improvement in accommodation status was found, as was the incidence of not living independently, which was lower in the ICM group (n=1185, 4 RCTs, RR 0.65 CI 0.49 to 0.88).Quality of life data found no significant difference between groups, but data were weak. CSQ scores showed a greater participant satisfaction in the ICM group (n=423, 2 RCTs, MD 3.23 CI 2.31 to 4.14).2. ICM versus non-ICM The included studies failed to show a significant advantage of ICM in reducing the average length of hospitalisation (n=2220, 21 RCTs, MD -0.08 CI -0.37 to 0.21). They did find ICM to be more advantageous than non-ICM in reducing rate of lost to follow-up (n=2195, 9 RCTs, RR 0.72 CI 0.52 to 0.99), although data showed a substantial level of heterogeneity (I²=59%, p=0.01). Overall, no significant differences were found in the effects of ICM compared to non-ICM for broad outcomes such as service use, mortality, social functioning, mental state, behaviour, quality of life, satisfaction and costs.3. Fidelity to ACT Within the meta-regression we found that i. the more ICM is adherent to the ACT model, the better it is at decreasing time in hospital ('organisation fidelity' variable coefficient -0.36 CI -0.66 to -0.07); and ii. the higher the baseline hospital use in the population, the better ICM is at decreasing time in hospital ('baseline hospital use' variable coefficient -0.20 CI -0.32 to -0.10). Combining both these variables within the model, 'organisation fidelity' is no longer significant, but 'baseline hospital use' result is still significantly influencing time in hospital (regression coefficient -0.18 CI -0.29 to -0.07, p=0.0027).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

ICM was found effective in ameliorating many outcomes relevant to people with severe mental illnesses. Compared to standard care ICM was shown to reduce hospitalisation and increase retention in care. It also globally improved social functioning, although ICM's effect on mental state and quality of life remains unclear. ICM is of value at least to people with severe mental illnesses who are in the sub-group of those with a high level of hospitalisation (about 4 days/month in past 2 years) and the intervention should be performed close to the original model.It is not clear, however, what gain ICM provides on top of a less formal non-ICM approach.We do not think that more trials comparing current ICM with standard care or non-ICM are justified, but currently we know of no review comparing non-ICM with standard care and this should be undertaken.

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.

National dissemination of supported housing in the VA: model adherence versus model modification

OBJECTIVE

The continuing development and dissemination of emerging evidence-based practices may be facilitated by the availability of descriptive information on the actual delivery of the service, and its variability, across sites. This paper presents data on the participation of 2,925 homeless veterans in the Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supported Housing (HUD-VASH) program at 36 sites across the country, for up to five years. While most conceptual models emphasize rapid placement, sustained intensive case management, rehabilitation services, and "permanent" housing, no program has yet presented empirical data on the actual delivery of such services over an extended period of time.

METHODS

Using extensive longitudinal data from the VA's national homeless outreach program, the Health Care for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) program, a quantitative portrait presents what happens in supported housing in a large real-world dissemination effort.

RESULTS

Program entry to HUD-VASH was generally slow with 108 days (sd = 92 days) on average passing between program entry and housing placement. Total program participation lasted 2.6 years on average (sd = 1.6 years)-just half of the possible 5 years. Service delivery became substantially less intensive over time by several measures, and three-fourths of the veterans terminated within five years, although the vast majority (82%) were housed at the time. Few veterans received rehabilitation services (6%) or employment assistance (17%) and most service delivery focused on obtaining housing.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest that real-world supported housing programs may not adhere to the prevalent model descriptions either because of implementation failure or because veteran needs and preferences differ from those suggested by that model.

Community-based services for homeless adults experiencing concurrent mental health and substance use disorders: a realist approach to synthesizing evidence

Consultations with community-based service providers in Toronto identified a lack of strong research evidence about successful community-based interventions that address the needs of homeless clients experiencing concurrent mental health and substance use disorders. We undertook a collaborative research effort between academic-based and community-based partners to conduct a systematic evidence synthesis drawing heavily from Pawson's realist review methodology to focus on both whether programs are successful and why and how they lead to improved outcomes. We examined scholarly and nonscholarly literature to explore program approaches and program elements that lead to improvements in mental health and substance use disorders among homeless individuals with concurrent disorders (CD). Information related to program contexts, elements, and successes and failures were extracted and further supplemented by key informant interviews and author communication regarding reviewed published studies. From the ten programs that we reviewed, we identified six important and promising program strategies that reduce mental health and, to a far lesser degree, substance use problems: client choice in treatment decision-making, positive interpersonal relationships between client and provider, assertive community treatment approaches, providing supportive housing, providing supports for instrumental needs, and nonrestrictive program approaches. These promising program strategies function, in part, by promoting and supporting autonomy among homeless adults experiencing CD. Our realist informed review is a useful methodology for synthesizing complex programming information on community-based interventions.

A Review of Services and Interventions for Runaway and Homeless Youth: Moving Forward

Research focused on the impact of community-based services and treatment interventions designed to intervene in the lives of runaway and homeless youth has increased in the last two decades in the U.S. and internationally. In light of the tremendous need for identifying effective strategies to end homelessness and its associated problems among youth, this paper summarizes and critiques the findings of the extant literature including U.S., international, and qualitative studies. Thirty-two papers met criteria for inclusion in the review. Among the conclusions are that comprehensive interventions which target the varied and interconnected needs of these youth and families may be worthy of more study than studies that isolate the intervention focus on one problem. Also, more research incorporating design strategies that increase the reliability and validity of study findings is needed. Other preliminary conclusions and future directions are offered.

Mistrust of outreach workers and lack of confidence in available services among individuals who are chronically street homeless

This qualitative study explored how individuals who are homeless perceive outreach practices and available services. Interviews were conducted with 24 people who had been homeless for >/=1 year and who consistently resided on the streets of west midtown, Manhattan, New York. Reasons why these individuals refuse services include a pervasive mistrust of outreach workers and the agencies that employ them, as well as a prominent lack of confidence in available services. The findings suggest a need for an approach to outreach that incorporates giving individualized attention from outreach workers, using an empathetic listening approach, minimizing stereotyping, providing greater choices, and employing formerly homeless people as outreach workers.