Tenant Outcomes in Supported Housing and Community Residences in New York City

Department of Sociomedical Sciences, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States
Psychiatric Services (Impact Factor: 2.41). 08/2006; 57(7):982-91. DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.57.7.982
Source: PubMed


This study examined whether outcomes in housing, clinical status, and well-being of persons with severe mental illness and a history of homelessness differ between those in supported housing and those in community residences, two housing arrangements that substantially differ in the level of independence that is offered to its tenants.
A quasi-experimental 18-month follow-up study was conducted with 157 persons newly entering supported housing and community residences. The housing models accepted persons with similar illness characteristics and homelessness histories, so that the inability to randomly assign tenants to housing types could be compensated for by propensity scoring methods. Tenure in housing was examined by using survival models. Analyses of other outcomes used hierarchical linear and regression models in both intent-to-treat (N=139) and true-stayer (N=80) analyses.
Tenure in housing did not differ by housing type. Substantial proportions of tenants in both models remained housed during the follow-up period. Tenants in supported housing reported greater housing satisfaction in terms of autonomy and economic viability. Over time some tenants in supported housing reported greater feelings of isolation. Independent of housing type, symptoms of depression or anxiety at housing entry increased the risk of poorer outcomes.
The models of supported housing were viable portals of entry into community housing for homeless persons, even for consumers with characteristics indicating that they would have been more likely to be placed in community residences. The results suggest that greater clinical attention should be paid to persons who exhibit depression or anxiety when entering housing.

Download full-text


Available from: Carole Siegel, Nov 04, 2015
  • Source
    • "For families, studies have found that services, when combined with housing, contribute little to improved housing stability (Weitzman & Berry 1994; US Department of Health & Human Services 1991), although case management and other services can facilitate improved, non-housing outcomes (Bassuk & Geller 2006). For single adults, Hurlburt, Hough & Wood (1996) found that support services associated with subsidized housing made little difference in housing stability, while other studies have found support services to be important, but not as important as the provision of a housing subsidy (Goldfinger et al. 1999; Siegel et al. 2006; Lipton et al. 2000; Tsemberis & Eisenberg 2000; Rosenheck et al. 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prevention has long been cited as an important part of any strategy to end homelessness. Nonetheless, effective prevention initiatives have proven difficult to implement in practice. The lack of a prevention-oriented policy framework has resulted in responses to homelessness that focus primarily on assisting those who have already lost their housing and, consequently, to the institutionalization of homelessness. Recent Federal legislation, however, signals an emergent paradigm shift towards prevention-based approaches to homelessness. This paper explores the conceptual underpinnings of successful prevention initiatives and reviews practice-based evidence from several successful prevention-oriented approaches to homelessness in the United States and Europe. We then outline a conceptual framework for a transformation of homeless assistance towards prevention-oriented approaches, with a discussion of relevant issues of program design and practice, data collection standards, and program performance monitoring and evaluation.
    Housing Policy Debate 05/2011; 21(2-2 March 2011):295-315. DOI:10.1080/10511482.2010.536246 · 0.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Over many decades of changing public policy, there is consistent evidence that they are more isolated and have fewer social supports than the general population (Farina and Ring 1965; Markowitz 1998). People with severe levels of depression, thought disorders, and with negative symptoms of schizophrenia experience impaired social functioning and have sparse social networks (Siegel et al. 2006; Addington and Addington 1999; Dickerson et al. 1999). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recently, there have been advances in the development of multidimensional poverty measures. Work is needed however on how to implement such measures. This paper deals with the process of selecting dimensions and setting weights in multidimensional poverty measurement using qualitative and quantitative methods in a participatory framework. We estimate the multidimensional poverty measures developed by Alkire and Foster for a particular group: persons with psychiatric diagnoses in the United States. To select relevant dimensions and their relative ordering, two discussion groups are convened: one consisting of persons with lived-experience expertise and the other consisting of people with mental health service provision or research expertise. Several methods are used to convert dimension rankings into weights. The selection and ordering of dimensions differed between the two discussion groups, as did the resulting poverty measures. For instance, the poverty headcount using the dimensions and weights of the ‘lived experience’ group ranged from 20.61% to 26.96% as compared to a range of 18.62% to 33.19% using those of the ‘provider/researcher’ group. One of the main results of this study is that the Alkire Foster method is sensitive to the selection of dimensions and the methods used to derive rankings and weights. It points toward the limitation of relying exclusively on small scale qualitative methods for the selection and ranking of dimensions. In addition, the participatory framework used in this study was found to be essential in interpreting results, in particular with respect to the limitations of the data set in measuring relevant dimensions.
    Social Indicators Research 05/2011; 110(3). DOI:10.2139/ssrn.2127595 · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "First, consumers living in SROs have reported lower satisfaction than those living in apartments (Levstek & Bond, 1993; Tanzman, Wilson, & Yoe, 1992). Yet, single room occupancies (SROs) are often classified as independent housing (e.g., Seidman, et al., 2003), and perhaps some studies have ignored differences between apartments and SROs (e.g., Siegel, et al., 2006). A second factor may be that what determines housing satisfaction is not the type of housing per se, but whether the housing choice fits the consumers' preferences. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Housing is an essential component of psychiatric rehabilitation, particularly for consumers with dual diagnoses. Research has not clearly examined why and when consumers prefer different types of housing. This exploratory study examined 1) whether housing preferences differ between stage of treatment for substance abuse, 2) whether consumers who prefer certain housing types have preferences for certain characteristics, and 3) whether consumers living in different types of housing report differences in social support, choice, and housing satisfaction. A total of 103 participants living in supervised housing (n= 65), independent apartment housing (n= 22), single room occupancy hotels (n= 11), and with family (n= 5) completed self-report questionnaires. Results showed that 1) the majority of participants preferred their own apartment or house across different stages of treatment, 2) preference for supervised housing was associated with on-site staff and peer support while preference for apartment housing was associated with autonomy and privacy, and 3) consumers in single room occupancies reported the least choice and lowest satisfaction. These findings contribute to the understanding of consumers' housing preferences and the differences consumers perceive between certain housing types.
    American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation 10/2010; 13(4):258-275. DOI:10.1080/15487768.2010.523357
Show more