Permanent supportive housing for families experiencing homelessness—typically, subsidized housing that is not time limited and provides access to a range of support services—has substantially increased over the past 10 years, despite an absence of rigorous evidence of its effectiveness. We examine the benefits of subsidized housing with supportive services compared to subsidized housing alone. Our findings suggest that supportive housing offers more opportunities for access to services and benefits than subsidized housing alone, but it may not be beneficial to families’ housing stability or to family members’ employment or involvement with the criminal justice system. We argue that housing that is coupled with intensive case management, that is service rich, and that provides and adheres to harm reduction principles may help to strengthen supportive housing’s effectiveness.
BassukEllen L.DeCandiaCarmela J.TsertsvadzeAlexanderRichardMolly K. 2014. The effectiveness of housing interventions and housing and service interventions on ending family homelessness: A systematic review. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry84 (5): 457–74.
2.
BassukEllen L.GellerStephanie. 2006. The role of housing and services in ending family homelessness. Housing Policy Debate17 (4): 781–806.
3.
BodonyiJamiOrlandoLauraYanceyBrianaLamberjackReneeMcClaughlinOma. 2008. Final findings report: A comprehensive evaluation of the Sound Families Initiative. Seattle, WA: Northwestern Institute for Children and Families & University of Washington School of Social Work.
4.
Building Changes. 2014. Healthy systems navigation among high-needs families: Understanding navigation approaches, perceived health effects, and the influence of supportive housing. Seattle, WA: Building Changes.
5.
FowlerPatrick J.ChaviraDina. 2014. Family Unification Program: Housing services for homeless child welfare–involved families. Housing Policy Debate24 (4): 802–14.
6.
GubitsDanielShinnMarybethBellStephenWoodMichelleDastrupSamuel R.SolariClaudiaBrownScott, et al2015. Family Options Study: Short-term impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
7.
GubitsDanielShinnMarybethWoodMichelleBellStephenDastrupSamuelSolariClaudiaBrownScottMcInnisDebiMcCallTomKattelUtsav. 2016. Family Options Study: Three-year impacts of housing and services interventions for homeless families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research.
8.
GulcurLeylaTsemberisSamStefancicAnaGreenwoodRonni M. 2007. Community integration of adults with psychiatric disabilities and histories of homelessness. Community Mental Health Journal43 (3): 211–28.
9.
HayesMaureen A.ZonnevilleMeganBassukEllen. 2013. The SHIFT Study final report: Service and housing interventions for families in transition. Newton, MA: National Center on Family Homelessness.
10.
LachaudJamesMejia-LancherosCiliaNisenbaumRosaneStergiopoulosVickyO’CampoPatriciaHwangStephen W. 2021. Housing First and severe mental disorders: The challenge of exiting homelessness. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Permanent supportive housing: Evaluating the evidence for improving health outcomes among people experiencing chronic homelessness. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
13.
National Center on Family Homelessness. 2009. The Minnesota Supportive Housing and Managed Care Pilot evaluation summary. Newton, MA: National Center on Family Homelessness.
14.
National Center on Family Homelessness. 2012. Cross-site evaluation of the strengthening at-risk and homeless young mothers and children. Newton, MA: National Center on Family Homelessness.
15.
New Hampshire-Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center. 1995. Residential follow-back calendar. Lebanon, NH: Dartmouth Medical School.
16.
NolanClareBroekeCathy tenMageeMichelleBurtMartha R. 2005. The Family Permanent Supportive Housing Initiative: Family history and experiences in supportive housing. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
17.
PergamitMichaelCunninghamMaryHansonDevlinStanczykAlexandra. 2019. Does supportive housing keep families together?Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
18.
Philliber Research Associates. 2006. Supportive Housing for Families evaluation: Accomplishments and lessons learned. Oakland, CA: Corporation for Supportive Housing.
19.
RogDebra J.BucknerJohn C. 2007. Homeless families and children. In Toward understanding homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
20.
RogDebra J.Gilbert-MongelliAriana M.LundyEzell. 1997. The Family Reunification Program: Final evaluation report. Washington, DC: Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies.
21.
RogDebra J.GutmanMarjorie A. 1997. The Homeless Families Program: Results to inform policy and program change. In To improve health and health care, eds. IsaacsStephen L.KnickmanJames R., 209–31. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
RogDebra J.HendersonKathryn A.StevensKathrynJainRanita. 2014. Washington Families Fund High Needs Family Program year 5 evaluation summary. Rockville, MD: Westat.
23.
RogDebra J.MarshallTinaDoughertyRichard H.GeorgePreethyDanielsAllen S.GhoseSushmita ShomaDelphin-RittmonMiriam E. 2014. Permanent supportive housing: Assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services65 (3): 287–94.
24.
RogDebra J.McCombs-ThorntonKimberly L.Gilbert-MongelliAriana M.BritoM. ConsueloHolupkaC. Scott. 1995. Implementation of the Homeless Families Program: 2. Characteristics, strengths, and needs of participant families. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry65 (4): 514–28.
25.
RogDebra J.WoleyMargaret. 2014. Identifying families experiencing chronic homelessness. New Orleans, LA: National Alliance to End Homelessness.
26.
RosenbaumPaul R.RubinDonald B. 1985. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician39 (1): 33–38.
27.
SaundersJohn B.AaslandOlaf G.BaborThomas F.De La FuenteJuan R.GrantMarcus. 1993. Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol Consumption-II. Addiction88 (6): 791–804.
28.
ShinnMarybeth. 2009. Ending homelessness for families: The evidence for affordable housing. Washington, DC: National Alliance to End Homelessness and Enterprise Community Partners.
29.
SkinnerHarvey A.1982. The drug abuse screening test. Addictive Behaviors7 (4): 363–71.
30.
SolariClaudia D.WaltonDouglasKhadduriJill. 2021. How well do housing vouchers work for Black families experiencing homelessness? Evidence from the Family Options Study. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (this volume).
31.
SpitzerRobert L.KroenkeKurtWilliamsJanet B. W.LöweBernd. 2006. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine166 (10): 1092–97.
32.
SpitzerRobert L.KroenkeKurtWilliamsJanet B. W.
Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. 1999. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: The PHQ primary care study. JAMA282 (18): 1737–44.
33.
SrebnikDebraConnorTaraSyllaLaurie. 2013. A pilot study of the impact of housing first–supported housing for intensive users of medical hospitalization and sobering services. American Journal of Public Health103 (2): 316–21.
34.
StergiopoulosVickyHwangStephen W.GozdzikAgnesNisenbaumRosaneLatimerEricRabouinDanielAdairCarol E., et al2015. Effect of scattered-site housing using rent supplements and intensive case management on housing stability among homeless adults with mental illness: A randomized trial. JAMA313 (9): 905–15.
35.
TsemberisSam. 2010. Housing First: Ending homelessness, promoting recovery and reducing costs. In How to house the homeless, eds. EllenIngrid GouldO’FlahertyBrendan, 37–56. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
TsemberisSamGulcurLeylaNakaeMaria. 2004. Housing first, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health94 (4): 651–56.
37.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). 2018. Supportive housing. Available from www.usich.gov (accessed 10 April 2020).
38.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2019. Housing inventory counts. Washington, DC: HUD. Available from https://www.hudexchange.info (accessed 10 April 2020).
39.
WareJ. E.KosinskiM.DeweyJ. E.GandekB. 2001. How to score and interpret single- item health status measures: A manual for users of the SF-8 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: Quality Metric.
40.
WeitzmanBethBerryC. A. 1994. Formerly homeless families and the transition to permanent housing: High risk families and the role of intensive case management services. Toronto: Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.
41.
WolfeJessicaKimerlingRachelBrownPamela J.ChrestmanKelly R.LevinK. 1996. Psychometric review of the Life Stressor Checklist-Revised. In Instrumentation in stress, trauma, and adaptation, ed. StammB. Hudnall, 198–200. Lutherville, MD: Sidran Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
