Does One Size Fit All? What We Can and Can't Learn From a Meta-analysis of Housing Models for Persons With Mental Illness

Human Services Research Institute, 2336 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02140, USA.
Psychiatric services (Washington, D.C.) (Impact Factor: 2.41). 04/2009; 60(4):473-82. DOI: 10.1176/
Source: PubMed


Numerous studies have evaluated the impacts of community housing models on outcomes of persons with severe mental illness. The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 44 unique housing alternatives described in 30 studies, which they categorized as residential care and treatment, residential continuum, permanent supported housing, and nonmodel housing. Outcomes examined included housing stability, symptoms, hospitalization, and satisfaction.
Outcome scores were converted to effect size measures appropriate to the data. Effect sizes were combined to estimate random effects for housing models, which were then compared.
All models achieved significantly greater housing stability than nonmodel housing. This effect was greatest for permanent supported housing (effect size=.63, p<.05). No differences between housing models were significant. For reduction of psychiatric symptoms, only residential care and treatment differed from nonmodel housing (effect size=.65, p<.05). For hospitalization reduction, both residential care and treatment and permanent supported housing differed from nonmodel housing (p<.05). Permanent supported housing achieved the highest effect size (.73) for satisfaction and differed from nonmodel housing and residential care and treatment (p<.001 and p<.05, respectively).
The meta-analysis provides quantitative evidence that compared with nonmodel housing, housing models contribute to stable housing and other favorable outcomes. The findings also support the theory that different housing models achieve different outcomes for different subgroups. Data were not sufficient to fully answer questions designed to enable program planners and providers to better meet consumers' needs. It is important to answer these questions with research that uses common measures and adheres to scientific conventions.

1 Follower
62 Reads
  • Source
    • "While increasing the supply of housing to community programs was necessary, it was still not sufficient as many of these programs were failing to reach people experiencing chronic homelessness. After deinstutionalization, the dominant model of housing for people with severe mental illnesses was the residential continuum, where people would graduate from more restricted housing models, such as group homes, to less restricted housing, such as independent apartments with supportive services (Leff et al., 2009). This graduated model essentially tied housing to services, as the type of housing was dependent upon sobriety and engagement in treatment, and the rejection of or failure to adhere to these requirements was often what drove people back onto the streets. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence Based Policy has been articulated and practiced in Europe, particularly under the 'New Labour' policies of the former Labour government in the United Kingdom. In the United States, the impact of research on policy has been inconsistent due to differing relationships between researchers and policy makers. This paper gives an overview of evidence based policy and presents critiques based on its reliance on positivist methods and technical approach to policy making. Using these critiques as a framework, the paper discusses the case of Housing First, a policy adopted by the Bush Administration in order to address the problem of chronic homelessness. The case is an example of research driven policy making but also resulted in a progressive policy being promoted by a conservative administration. In discussing the case, the paper elaborates on the relationship between evidence and policy, arguing that evidence based policy fails to integrate evidence and values into policy deliberations. The paper concludes with alternative models of policy decision making and their implications for research.
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 07/2011; 34(4):275-82. DOI:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.07.006 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "To date, results of research on supportive and supported housing show the two approaches to yield very similar results, although the effects of supported housing are generally more pronounced (Leff et al., 2009). In the only study comparing supported and supportive housing, residents of supported housing reported greater housing choice and control relative to residents in supportive housing (Tsemberis, Gulcur, & Nakae, 2004). "
    [Hokenfu zasshi] The Japanese journal for public health nurse 02/1987; 43(1):62-6.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Case managers are among the direct service providers responsible for engaging people with severe mental illnesses. Understanding how they interpret and respond to clinically difficult situations can inform ways to intervene and reduce service disengagement. This qualitative study explored clinically difficult situations when case managers invoked the term “sabotage”. Interviews were conducted with 21 case managers and analyzed by co-coders focusing on how case managers used the term sabotage to describe service user behavior. Themes that emerged were attributing sabotage to; fear of success, fear of attaining what you desire, avoidance of responsibility and change, and a lack of structured support. Drawing on the concepts of clinical case management and mental health recovery, we consider implications for the training and supervision of case managers and how services are structured.
    Clinical Social Work Journal 06/2012; 40(2). DOI:10.1007/s10615-012-0385-2 · 0.27 Impact Factor
Show more


62 Reads
Available from