For this state-of-science overview of geospatial approaches for identifying US communities with high lead-exposure risk, we compiled and summarized public data and national maps of lead indices and models, environmental lead indicators, and children’s blood lead surveillance data. Currently available indices and models are primarily constructed from housing-age and sociodemographic data; differing methods, variables, data, weighting schemes, and geographic scales yield maps with different exposure risk profiles. Environmental lead indicators are available (e.g., air, drinking water, dust, soil) at different spatial scales, but key gaps remain. Blood lead level data have limitations as testing, reporting, and completeness vary across states. Mapping tools and approaches developed by federal agencies and other groups for different purposes present an opportunity for greater collaboration. Maps, data visualization tools, and analyses that synthesize available geospatial efforts can be evaluated and improved with local knowledge and blood lead data to refine identification of high-risk locations for prioritizing prevention efforts and targeting risk-reduction strategies. Remaining challenges are discussed along with a work-in-progress systematic approach for cross-agency data integration, toward advancing “whole-of-government” public health protection from lead exposures. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S7):S658–S669. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307051 )

Context: Poor physical and mental health and substance use disorder can be causes and consequences of homelessness. Approximately 2.1 million persons per year in the United States experience homelessness. People experiencing homelessness have high rates of emergency department use, hospitalization, substance use treatment, social services use, arrest, and incarceration. Objectives: A standard approach to treating homeless persons with a disability is called Treatment First, requiring clients be “housing ready”—that is, in psychiatric treatment and substance-free—before and while receiving permanent housing. A more recent approach, Housing First, provides permanent housing and health, mental health, and other supportive services without requiring clients to be housing ready. To determine the relative effectiveness of these approaches, this systematic review compared the effects of both approaches on housing stability, health outcomes, and health care utilization among persons with disabilities experiencing homelessness. Design: A systematic search (database inception to February 2018) was conducted using 8 databases with terms such as “housing first,” “treatment first,” and “supportive housing.” Reference lists of included studies were also searched. Study design and threats to validity were assessed using Community Guide methods. Medians were calculated when appropriate. Eligibility Criteria: Studies were included if they assessed Housing First programs in high-income nations, had concurrent comparison populations, assessed outcomes of interest, and were written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports. Main Outcome Measures: Housing stability, physical and mental health outcomes, and health care utilization. Results: Twenty-six studies in the United States and Canada met inclusion criteria. Compared with Treatment First, Housing First programs decreased homelessness by 88% and improved housing stability by 41%. For clients living with HIV infection, Housing First programs reduced homelessness by 37%, viral load by 22%, depression by 13%, emergency departments use by 41%, hospitalization by 36%, and mortality by 37%. Conclusions: Housing First programs improved housing stability and reduced homelessness more effectively than Treatment First programs. In addition, Housing First programs showed health benefits and reduced health services use. Health care systems that serve homeless patients may promote their health and well-being by linking them with effective housing services.

No abstract

Context: Unaffordable or insecure housing is associated with poor health in children and adults. Tenant-based housing voucher programs (voucher programs) limit rent to 30% or less of household income to help households with low income obtain safe and affordable housing. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of voucher programs in improving housing, health, and other health-related outcomes for households with low income. Design: Community Guide systematic review methods were used to assess intervention effectiveness and threats to validity. An updated systematic search based on a previous Community Guide review was conducted for literature published from 1999 to July 2019 using electronic databases. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. Eligibility Criteria: Studies were included if they assessed voucher programs in the United States, had concurrent comparison populations, assessed outcomes of interest, were written in English, and published in peer-reviewed journals or government reports. Main Outcome Measures: Housing quality and stability, neighborhood opportunity (safety and poverty), education, income, employment, physical and mental health, health care use, and risky health behavior.