Housing Interventions at the Neighborhood Level and Health: A Review of the Evidence

National Center for Healthy Housing, Columbia, Maryland 21044, USA.
Journal of public health management and practice: JPHMP (Impact Factor: 1.47). 08/2010; 16(5 Suppl):S44-52. DOI: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3181dfbb72
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A panel of subject matter experts systematically reviewed evidence linking neighborhood-level housing interventions, such as housing programs or policies, to health outcomes. One of the 10 interventions reviewed--the Housing Choice Voucher Program--had sufficient evidence for implementation or expansion. The evidence showed that voucher holders are less likely to suffer from overcrowding, malnutrition due to food insecurity, and concentrated neighborhood poverty than non-voucher holders. Of the other reviewed interventions, 2 needed more field evaluation and 7 needed more formative research. None were determined to be ineffective. Although many of the reviewed interventions lacked sufficient evidence for widespread implementation solely based on their health benefits, this evidence review shows that many interventions positively affect other areas of social, economic, and environmental well-being. Efforts to improve neighborhood environments and to maintain and increase the number of affordable housing units are critical to ensuring safe, healthy, and affordable housing for all people in the United States. Given that people of color disproportionately reside in high-poverty neighborhoods, neighborhood-level interventions may be particularly important in efforts to eliminate health disparities.


Available from: Andrés Villaveces, Jun 02, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Housing conditions can impact on physical and mental health through 4 interrelated dimensions: 1) the home (the emotional housing conditions), 2) the physical housing conditions, and 3) the physical environment, and 4) the social (community) environment of the neighborhood where the house is located. In Spain, the use of the construction market as an engine for economic growth and the promotion of private property as the main type of housing tenure has led to the use of housing as a speculative good instead of its being considered a first-necessity good. While Spain is the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) country with the largest housing stock per inhabitant, this stock is highly underutilized, thus excluding the most deprived sector of the population from access to housing. The impact of the current economic crisis on housing has mainly been due to a reduction in household income, which has increased the number of families or persons struggling to cover their housing costs or being evicted. Evidence indicates that this type of problem has a negative impact on health, especially on mental health, but financial problems also make it difficult to meet other basic needs such as eating. There are several instruments to reduce the impact of the economic crisis, such as debt financing or deed of assignment in payment. In the long-term, the creation of a social housing stock should be promoted, as well as rental assistance mechanisms.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality of housing has been shown to be related to health outcomes, including mental health and well-being, yet "objective" or observer-rated housing quality is rarely measured in housing intervention research. This may be due to a lack of standardized, reliable, and valid housing quality instruments. The objective of this research was to develop and validate the Observer-Rated Housing Quality Scale (OHQS) for use in a multisite trial of a "housing first" intervention for homeless individuals with mental illness. A list of 79 housing unit, building, and neighborhood characteristics was generated from a review of the relevant literature and three focus groups with consumers and housing service providers. The characteristics were then ranked by 47 researchers, consumers, and service providers on perceived importance, generalizability, universality of value, and evidence base. Items were then drafted, scaled (five points, half values allowed), and pretested in seven housing units and with seven raters using cognitive interviewing techniques. The draft scale was piloted in 55 housing units in Toronto and Winnipeg, Canada. Items were rated independently in each unit by two trained research assistants and a housing expert. Data were analyzed using classical psychometric approaches and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for inter-rater reliability. The draft scale consisted of 34 items assessing three domains: the unit, the building, and the neighborhood. Five of 18 unit items and 3 of 7 building items displayed ceiling or floor effects and were adjusted accordingly. Internal consistency was very good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90 for the unit items, 0.80 for the building items, and 0.92 total (unit and building)). Percent agreement ranged from 89 to 100 % within one response scale value and 67 to 91 % within one half scale value. Inter-rater reliability was also good (ICCs were 0.87 for the unit, 0.85 for the building, and 0.93 for the total scale). Three neighborhood items (e.g., distance to transit) were found to be most efficiently rated using publicly available information. The physical quality of housing can be reliably rated by trained but nonexpert raters using the OHQS. The tool has potential for improved measurement in housing-related health research, including addressing the limitations of self-report, and may also enable documenting the quality of housing that is provided by publicly funded housing programs.
    Journal of Urban Health 01/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11524-013-9851-6 · 1.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although social and economic policies are not considered part of health services infrastructure, such policies may influence health and disease by altering social determinants of health (SDH). We review social and economic policies in the USA that have measured health outcomes among adults in four domains of SDH including housing and neighborhood, employment, family strengthening/marriage, and income supplementation. The majority of these policies target low-income populations. These social policies rarely consider health as their initial mission or outcomes. When measuring health, the programs document mental health and physical health benefits more than half the time, although some effects fade with time. We also find considerable segregation of program eligibility by gender and family composition. Policy makers should design future social policies to evaluate health outcomes using validated health measures; to target women more broadly across the socioeconomic spectrum; and to consider family caregiving responsibilities, as ignoring them can have unintended health effects.
    09/2014; 1(3). DOI:10.1007/s40471-014-0013-5