BackgroundIndividuals 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.MethodsEligibility 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.ResultsParticipants 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.ConclusionThe 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 registrationCurrent 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).

Our findings provide important context to the emerging body of quantitative research on Housing First and recovery from homelessness. Participants' experiences of recovery, particularly as it relates to housing and supports, shifts in identity, and meaningful activity must be acknowledged and incorporated into the design and evaluation of public services, and policy and service reforms. (PsycINFO Database Record

ObjectiveNo previous experimental trials have investigated Housing First (HF) in both scattered site (SHF) and congregate (CHF) formats. We hypothesized that CHF and SHF would be associated with a greater percentage of time stably housed as well as superior health and psychosocial outcomes over 24 months compared to treatment as usual (TAU).MethodsInclusion criteria were homelessness, mental illness, and high need for support. Participants were randomised to SHF, CHF, or TAU. SHF consisted of market rental apartments with support provided by Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). CHF consisted of a single building with supports equivalent to ACT. TAU included existing services and supports.ResultsOf 800 people screened, 297 were randomly assigned to CHF (107), SHF (90), or TAU (100). The percentage of time in stable housing over 24 months was 26.3% in TAU (reference; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 20.5, 32.0), compared to 74.3% in CHF (95% CI = 69.3, 79.3, p<0.001) and 74.5% in SHF (95% CI = 69.2, 79.7, p<0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured CHF but not SHF compared to TAU.ConclusionHF in scattered and congregate formats is capable of achieving housing stability among people experiencing major mental illness and chronic homelessness. Only CHF was associated with improvement on select secondary outcomes.RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN57595077.

ObjectivesThis study used longitudinal, narrative data to identify trajectories of recovery among homeless adults with mental illness alongside the factors that contribute to positive, negative, mixed or neutral trajectories over time. We expected that participants who received Housing First (HF) would describe more positive trajectories of recovery than those who were assigned to Treatment as Usual (TAU; no housing or support provided through the study).DesignNarrative interview data were collected from participants at baseline and 18 months after random assignment to HF or TAU.SettingParticipants were sampled from the community in Vancouver, British Columbia.ParticipantsFifty-four participants were randomly and purposively selected from the larger trial; 52 were interviewed at baseline and 43 were reinterviewed 18 months after randomisation.MethodSemistructured interviews were conducted at both time points. For each participant, paired baseline and follow-up narratives were classified as positive, negative, mixed or neutral trajectories of recovery, and thematic analysis was used to identify the factors underlying different trajectories.ResultsParticipants assigned to HF (n=28) were generally classified as positive or mixed trajectories; those assigned to TAU (n=15) were generally classified as neutral or negative trajectories. Positive trajectories were characterised by a range of benefits associated with good-quality, stable housing (eg, reduced substance use, greater social support), positive expressions of identity and the willingness to self-reflect. Negative, neutral and mixed trajectories were characterised by hopelessness (‘things will never get better’) related to continued hardship (eg, eviction, substance use problems), perceived failures and loss.ConclusionsHF is associated with positive trajectories of recovery among homeless adults with mental illness. Those who did not receive housing or support continued to struggle across a wide range of life domains. Findings are discussed with implications for addressing services and broader social change in order to benefit this marginalised population.

No abstract