Permanent Supportive Housing: Assessing the Evidence

Abstract

The moderate level of evidence indicates that permanent supportive housing is promising, but research is needed to clarify the model and determine the most effective elements for various subpopulations. Policy makers should consider including permanent supportive housing as a covered service for individuals with mental and substance use disorders. An evaluation component is needed to continue building its evidence base.

A Comparison of the Use of Physical and Mental Health Services by Homeless People With Severe Mental Health Problems in the Moncton Area Through the At Home/Chez Soi Program

“…Des recensions des écrits portant sur l'évaluation des programmes de logement et d'intervention destinés aux personnes itinérantes ayant des problèmes de santé mentale révèlent des réductions significatives des taux d'itinérance et des jours d'hospitalisation en comparaison aux personnes qui reçoivent les traitements usuels dans la communauté Nelson, Aubry et Lafrance, 2007;Rog et al, 2014). Plus précisément, les personnes vivant en logement ordinaire tout en recevant un suivi intensif dans le milieu ont dit avoir passé moins de temps en milieu hospitalier comparativement aux personnes qui participent à des programmes réguliers, à celles qui font la transition vers des logements ordinaires après avoir stabilisé leur fonctionnement , à celles qui ont reçu un soutien intensif dans la communauté sans logement et à celles ayant reçu les services usuels (O'Connell, Kasprow et Rosenheck, 2008).…”

“…Ainsi, les programmes de suivi intensif avec logement s'avèrent prometteurs dans l'intervention auprès des personnes itinérantes ayant des problèmes de santé mentale Nelson, 2010;Nelson et al, 2007). D'autres recensions récentes d'écrits portant sur le modèle d'intervention Logement d'abord soutiennent que les effets de cette approche sont modérés et que l'ensemble des études démontre des limites au plan méthodologique Rog et al, 2014). Par exemple, jusqu'à présent, les résultats proviennent généralement d'études sur des échantillons relativement petits, qui provenaient des grande villes américaines .…”

“…Literature reviews that evaluate housing and intervention programs for homeless people with mental health problems reveal significant reductions in homelessness and days of hospitalization compared to those receiving more typical treatment in the community Nelson, Aubry, & Lafrance, 2007;Rog et al, 2014). Specifically, people living in ordinary housing while receiving intensive follow-up in the community reported having spent less time in hospitals than those who participate in regular programs, those who transition to ordinary housing after having stabilized their ability to function , those who receive intensive support in the community without housing, and those who receive the usual services (O'Connell, Kasprow, & Rosenheck, 2008).…”

“…Intensive follow-up programs that accompany housing are promising in helping homeless people with mental health problems Nelson, 2010;Nelson et al, 2007). According to other recent literature reviews of the Housing First model, the effects of this approach are moderate and the complete body of studies shows methodological limitations , Rog et al, 2014. For example, results to date have generally been obtained from studies of relatively small samples from large American cities .…”

Do We Have the Knowledge to Address Homelessness?

“…Housing First programs in the United States, and many supportive housing programs more broadly (see Rog et al 2014), are targeted toward people with psychiatric illnesses and often with co-occurring addictions. Indeed, having a diagnosable psychiatric illness is often a requirement of accessing Housing First.…”