A quasi‐experimental evaluation of rent assistance for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness

Abstract

This study investigated the effectiveness of the addition of rent assistance to existing housing and support services in the Waterloo region of Ontario for people experiencing chronic homelessness. A nonequivalent comparison group design was used to compare the outcomes between (a) participants selected to receive rent assistance plus support services (n = 26) and (b) participants receiving support services only (n = 25). Participants were interviewed at baseline and 6 months later. Participants in the rent assistance condition showed significantly greater improvements over time relative to the comparison group in housing stability and quality of life. They also demonstrated significantly better perceived housing quality, and there were trends of greater improvement in community functioning, social support, and food security. The findings demonstrate that rent assistance is associated with superior program outcomes for people experiencing chronic homelessness and is a necessary component of supported housing models, such as Housing First.

Effectiveness of interventions targeting community integration among individuals with lived experiences of homelessness: A systematic review

“…The majority of studies included in this review employed standardised scales to measure CI ( n = 15; 81.0%; Aubry et al., 2015; Boisvert et al., 2008; Devine et al., 1997; Drake et al., 1997; Ferguson, 2018; Ferguson & Xie, 2008; McCay et al., 2011; O'Campo et al., 2016; O'Connell et al., 2017; Pankratz et al., 2017; Patterson et al., 2014; Stergiopoulos et al., 2016; Stewart et al., 2009; Wood et al., 1998). The most commonly used measure was the Community Integration Scale (Aubry & Myner, 1996; n = 3; 14.3%), modified by Patterson et al.…”

“…(2014) and subsequently used as modified scale in other studies (O'Campo et al., 2016; Patterson et al., 2014; Stergiopoulos et al., 2016). Other standardised scales used in full or in part to measure CI included: Lehman's Quality of Life Interview (Lehman, 1983; n = 2; 9.5%; O'Connell et al., 2017; Wood et al., 1998); Social Provisions Scale (Cutrona & Russell, 1987; n = 2; 9.5%; Pankratz et al., 2017; Stewart et al., 2009); ASR (Achenbach, 1997; n = 2; 9.5%); Multnomah Community Ability Scale (Hendryx, Dyck, McBride, & Whitbeck, 2001; n = 1; 4.8%; Aubry et al., 2016); UCLA‐LS‐R (Russell et al., 1980; n = 1; 4.8%; Stewart et al., 2009); SCS‐R (Lee et al, 2001; n = 1; 4.8%; McCay et al., 2011); MOS‐SSS (Sherbourne & Stewart, 1991; n = 1; 4.8%; Boisvert et al., 2008); and ASI (McLellan et al, 1992; n = 1; 4.8%; Devine et al., 1997). Although some of these scales were designed to measure constructs other than CI (e.g.…”

Navigating Complex Implementation Contexts: Overcoming Barriers and Achieving Outcomes in a National Initiative to Scale Out Housing First in Canada

“…By drawing on such success, both at the individual case level and program level, teams were able to strengthen their HF programs. For instance, in Waterloo, the results of an evaluation were instrumental in increasing the number of rent subsidies provided by the regional government from 40 to 150 (Pankratz, Nelson, & Morrison, ). Fraser also increased the number of subsidies and relaxed ACT service restrictions that previously favored heavy users of the mental health system, and increased access to the team by homeless people who were previously disengaged from care.…”

Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience

“…We identified 10 trials on income-assistance interventions, including rental assistance, [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] financial empowerment, 47 social enterprise interventions, 48 individual placement and support, 48,54 and compensated work therapy. 52 Our systematic review showed the benefit that income-assistance interventions have on housing stability (Gary Bloch, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., and Vanessa Brcic, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC: unpublished data, 2020).…”