The effect of forensic events on health status and housing stability among homeless and vulnerably housed individuals: A cohort study

Homelessness and Vulnerably-Housed Defined: A Synthesis of the Literature

There is no single accepted definition used in policy or research for the concepts of homelessness and vulnerably housed. Neuman's systems model (NSM) was the framework for this mixed-studies review, with the client system defined as these social issues and categorized as environmental stressors. Eighteen unique definitions of the concepts were identified in 30 studies. Extrapersonal stressors included housing history, interpersonal stressors included dependence on others for housing, and intrapersonal stressors included self-identification. Each level of stressor should be considered when defining these populations for inclusion in future research. Proposed definitions were formulated from the analysis of the results.

Factors Associated with Incarceration in Older Adults Experiencing Homelessness: Results from the HOPE HOME Study

BACKGROUND

In the US, the median age of adults experiencing homelessness and incarceration is increasing. Little is known about risk factors for incarceration among older adults experiencing homelessness. To develop targeted interventions, there is a need to understand their risk factors for incarceration.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence and risk factors associated with incarceration in a cohort of older adults experiencing homelessness.

DESIGN

Prospective, longitudinal cohort study with interviews every 6 months for a median of 5.8 years.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited adults ≥50 years old and homeless at baseline (n=433) via population-based sampling.

MAIN MEASURES

Our dependent variable was incident incarceration, defined as one night in jail or prison per 6-month follow-up period after study enrollment. Independent variables included socioeconomic status, social, health, housing, and prior criminal justice involvement.

KEY RESULTS

Participants had a median age of 58 years and were predominantly men (75%) and Black (80%). Seventy percent had at least one chronic medical condition, 12% reported heavy drinking, and 38% endorsed moderate-severe use of cocaine, 8% of amphetamines, and 7% of opioids. At baseline, 84% reported a lifetime history of jail stays; 37% reported prior prison stays. During follow-up, 23% spent time in jail or prison. In multivariable models, factors associated with a higher risk of incarceration included the following: having 6 or more confidants (HR=2.13, 95% CI=1.2-3.7, p=0.007), remaining homeless (HR=1.72, 95% CI=1.1-2.8, p=0.02), heavy drinking (HR=2.05, 95% CI=1.4-3.0, p<0.001), moderate-severe amphetamine use (HR=1.89, 95% CI=1.2-3.0, p=0.006), and being on probation (HR=3.61, 95% CI=2.4-5.4, p<0.001) or parole (HR=3.02, 95% CI=1.5-5.9, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults experiencing homelessness have a high risk of incarceration. There is a need for targeted interventions addressing substance use, homelessness, and reforming parole and probation in order to abate the high ongoing risk of incarceration among older adults experiencing homelessness.

Change in Housing Status among Homeless and Formerly Homeless Individuals in Quebec, Canada: A Profile Study

Housing stability is a key outcome in studies evaluating housing services for the homeless population. Housing stability has typically been defined dichotomously and based on a fixed duration of maintenance in housing accommodations, which does not fully capture change in housing status among homeless individuals. Moreover, few typologies have examined housing trajectories across different housing types. Cluster analysis was used to develop a typology of housing status change for 270 currently or formerly homeless individuals in Quebec (Canada) residing in shelters and temporary and permanent housing. Participants were interviewed at baseline (T0) and 12 months later (T1). The Gelberg–Andersen Model was used to organize housing-related variables into predisposing, needs and enabling factors. Comparison analyses were conducted to assess group differences. Three groups (Groups 1, 3 and 4) had more favorable and two (Groups 2 and 5) less favorable, housing status at T1. Findings suggest that maintenance or improvement of housing status requires suitable types and frequencies of service use (enabling factors) that are well adapted to the nature and complexity of health problems (needs factors) among homeless individuals. Specific interventions, such as outreach programs and case management, should be prioritized for individuals at higher risk for returning to homelessness.