Objective: To investigate the impact of forgiveness interventions designed to help individuals who have suffered because of betrayals, offenses, or victimization. Forgiveness is believed to be a mechanism through which individuals can experience increases in hope and positive emotions and relief from negative emotions, cognitions, and behaviors. Method: Fourteen published reports of process-based forgiveness interventions that included a comparison group are meta-analyzed. Results/Conclusions: Samples that received forgiveness interventions forgave more (effect size [ES] = .82) and enjoyed increased positive affect (ES = .81) and self-esteem (ES = .60) and less negative affect (ES = .54). Such gains were largely maintained at follow-up periods. Individually delivered programs are superior to group delivery, and some forgiveness programs are superior to others. Further moderators are discussed.

This article reports the results of an in-depth, descriptive study of long-term welfare recipients. A random sample of 284 respondents, all of whom had received public assistance for at least 36 months, were interviewed. Results illustrate personal barriers to self-sufficiency, including physical health problems that prevent work, severe domestic violence, educational deficits, substance abuse, learning disabilities, child behavior problems, generalized anxiety disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and clinical depression. Study findings underscore the complex, persistent, and multiple difficulties experienced by this population and suggest that for some welfare recipients, long-term (even lifelong) financial supports and social services may be in order. Implications for policy and programming are discussed.

No abstract

Homeless populations often suffer from mental illness, substance abuse, and criminality. Interventions, such as supportive housing, can have positive impacts, although benefits can be limited. This study examined outcomes for clients (N = 102) of a new supportive housing intervention. Use of formal treatment, jail contact, and community stability were compared pre-and post-housing. Jail bookings and residential substance abuse treatment significantly declined post-housing, while clients improved in income level, access to food, and housing stability. Results from official justice and treatment system data suggest that supportive housing can lead to significant changes. Future research is necessary to understand the relationship between client characteristics and outcomes.

No abstract