ObjectivesHope is widely embraced as an important factor in the recovery process. The role of housing in inspiring hope and facilitating recovery has been explored with homeless populations but is not well understood. This study explores perspectives on hopes for recovery and the role of housing on these hopes from the perspective of homeless adults experiencing mental illness participating in a multisite Housing First randomised controlled trial in Canada. The study draws on data from in-depth qualitative interviews with participants from the Toronto, Ontario site of the ‘At Home/Chez Soi’ Project.DesignIn-depth interviews were conducted with a subsample of participants from a larger Housing First randomised controlled trial.SettingThe research took place in Toronto, Canada.Participants60 participants in the larger trial (36 from the Housing First group and 24 from the Treatment as Usual group) took part in in-depth interviews.MethodParticipants for the in-depth interviews were purposively selected from the larger trial sample in Toronto and participated in an interview at the beginning of the study (baseline). Data from the baseline interviews were analysed using the constant comparative method derived from grounded theory methods.ResultsParticipants’ narratives show clear visualisation of goals for recovery, and emphasise that housing is an integral factor that can facilitate hope and support dimensions of recovery. However, some participants had difficulty adjusting to housing, and were concerned about feeling socially isolated, which could have negative implications for hopefulness and recovery.ConclusionsHousing First interventions should explicitly incorporate hope-inspiring, recovery-oriented approaches and support participants while adjusting to housing in order to sustain hopefulness.

This research examined the sustainability of Canada's At Home/Chez Soi Housing First (HF) programs for homeless persons with mental illness 2 years after the end of the demonstration phase of a large (more than 2000 participants enrolled), five-site, randomized controlled trial. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 142 participants (key informants, HF staff, and persons with lived experience) to understand sustainability outcomes and factors that influenced those outcomes. Also, a self-report HF fidelity measure was completed for nine HF programs that continued after the demonstration project. A cross-site analysis was performed, using the five sites as case studies. The findings revealed that nine of the 12 HF programs (75%) were sustained, and that seven of the nine programs reported a high level of fidelity (achieving an overall score of 3.5 or higher on a 4-point scale). The sites varied in terms of the level of systems integration and expansion of HF that were achieved. Factors that promoted or impeded sustainability were observed at multiple ecological levels: broad contextual (i.e., dissemination of research evidence, the policy context), community (i.e., partnerships, the presence of HF champions), organizational (i.e., leadership, ongoing training, and technical assistance), and individual (i.e., staff turnover, changes, and capacity). The findings are discussed in terms of the implementation science literature and their implications for how evidence-based programs like HF can be sustained.

No abstract