2017
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3055272
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Family Options Study: Short-Term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
68
3

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

4
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
2
68
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Our data suggest that higher levels of social support are protective against being unsheltered, but aren’t sufficient to avoid homelessness. This cluster may represent a group of individuals who may benefit from rapid rehousing programs or housing vouchers in order to prevent the progression to chronic homelessness (Gubits et al, 2015; "Rapid Re-Housing: Creating Programs that Work," 2009). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our data suggest that higher levels of social support are protective against being unsheltered, but aren’t sufficient to avoid homelessness. This cluster may represent a group of individuals who may benefit from rapid rehousing programs or housing vouchers in order to prevent the progression to chronic homelessness (Gubits et al, 2015; "Rapid Re-Housing: Creating Programs that Work," 2009). …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In that study, priority offers of permanent housing subsidies, typically a housing choice voucher without additional services, led to large reductions in homelessness and improvements in housing stability, family preservation, and adult well-being, along with reduced employment, but had very few effects on child outcomes, notably reductions in school mobility and absenteeism, relative to usual care. Temporary “rapid rehousing” subsidies also reduced absences relative to usual care; service-rich transitional housing had no effects on children beyond chance (Gubits et al 2015). The Family Options study did not find effects of any intervention on children’s mental health, which were prominent effects here, and could not examine associations with time, since there was just one assessment 20 months after families entered shelter.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Families with at least one child age 15 or younger were recruited from emergency shelters in Alameda County, California, after stays of at least seven days, between September 2010 and January 2012 as part of the Family Options Study (see Gubits, Spellman, Dunton, Brown, & Wood, 2013 for a full description of methods). Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 258 families at the time they were recruited.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…OR = odds ratio. Outcome variables are limited to less than 984 days after study entry. a As part of the Family Options study, families were randomly assigned to housing and service interventions (Gubits et al, 2013). The models in this table control for intervention assignment.…”
Section: Figurementioning
confidence: 99%