2014
DOI: 10.1179/1573658x14y.0000000007
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Housing first: paradigm or program?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 24 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Eriksson et al 2010; Stenberg et al 1995, 2011). This notion of a “non housing-ready” population, which is also widespread in the current debate on pathways into housing (as an argument against the “housing first” model) (Tsemberis et al 2004; Waegemakers Schiff and Schiff 2014) tends in other words to make the positive aspects of having a dwelling (or inversely, the negative aspects of losing it) conditional upon individuals ability to maintain their independent housing status. Thus, for those who are not members of the “housing-ready” population, the dwelling tends to be reduced to a mere question of bricks and mortar.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Eriksson et al 2010; Stenberg et al 1995, 2011). This notion of a “non housing-ready” population, which is also widespread in the current debate on pathways into housing (as an argument against the “housing first” model) (Tsemberis et al 2004; Waegemakers Schiff and Schiff 2014) tends in other words to make the positive aspects of having a dwelling (or inversely, the negative aspects of losing it) conditional upon individuals ability to maintain their independent housing status. Thus, for those who are not members of the “housing-ready” population, the dwelling tends to be reduced to a mere question of bricks and mortar.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although some studies have compared HF and “usual care” approaches that used the continuum of care model and reported comparable or better outcomes for HF, reviews of these studies have cited a variety of limitations, including characteristics of the samples used, selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria, measures used to assess problems, neglect of specific behaviors (e.g., assessment of heavy drinking), and retrospective data collection methods such as clinical chart reviews. 11,12 An additional concern in some of these studies was the use of unclear comparison conditions that did not define “usual care” or identify what services were offered or received. When continuum of care was identified as a comparison condition few of those programs had resources for long term housing after completion of treatment despite the fact that permanent housing is supposedly an integral component of the continuum of care approach.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reviews of the research on HF indicate when homeless persons are provided free or subsidized apartments they tend to stay in those locations for extended periods of time (Kertesz, et al, 2009; 2015; Waegemakers, et al, 2014). While some studies have documented other favorable outcomes (e.g., substance abuse and mental health), reviews of the current literature have described a variety of research design limitations.…”
Section: Housing Firstmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While some studies have documented other favorable outcomes (e.g., substance abuse and mental health), reviews of the current literature have described a variety of research design limitations. Concerns have been raised about the measures used, study procedures, sampling, and descriptions of comparison groups (Kertesz, et al, 2009; Waegemakers, et al, 2014). One factor shown to be associated with favorable outcomes is the provision of case management services (Hwang et al, 2005).…”
Section: Housing Firstmentioning
confidence: 99%