Research on Permanent Supportive Housing for Families NAEH National Conference on Ending Family Homelessness Jacquelyn Anderson Senior Program Manager, Policy Research February 8,

Overview  Findings from existing research on supportive housing for families  Characteristics of supportive housing residents  Outcomes  Unique service needs  Policy and research implications  Funding  Chronic homeless definition  Important research questions

Existing Research National Center on Family Homelessness, “Family Permanent Supportive Housing: Preliminary Research on Family Characteristics, Program Models, and Outcomes” (available at ) Provides a Summary of Three Evaluations –Philliber Research Associates. “ Supportive Housing for Families Evaluation: Accomplishments and Lessons Learned” –Urban Institute/Harder + Company. “The Family Permanent Supportive Housing Initiative: Family History and Experiences in Supportive Housing” –National Center on Family Homelessness. Minnesota Supportive Housing and Managed Care Pilot Project

Key Research Questions What are the characteristics of the populations residing in family PSH projects? What are the program characteristics and how do the models vary? What are the outcomes for participants in these programs? Is there any evidence that particular models are associated with improved participant outcomes?

Overview of the Studies Philliber Research Associates –5 projects (2 in Minnesota, 3 in San Francisco) –Outcome data for 4 projects Urban Institute/Harder+Company –6 projects in San Francisco –Interview of 100 residents National Center on Family Homelessness –2 projects in Minnesota –Intake interviews conducted

Participant Characteristics Mostly single-parent, female-headed households (81%) Heads-of-household are older than the average homeless family (36 years) Long histories of homelessness High prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders Very low income and high levels of unemployment

Long Histories of Homelessness Average of 44 months homeless as an adult 93% of families reported having been homeless at least once in the past 40% of families had been homeless three or more times previously One-third of the women had their first homeless experience as a minor

Other Personal Barriers Portland Village Emma’s Place Canon Barcus Lockwood- Coliseum Alameda Point (N=36)(N=16)(N=47)(N=94)(N=40) Mental health Drug abuse Alcohol abuse Percent of families with mental health and substance use disorders

Program Outcomes Outcome data only available for four programs Rates of housing stability high, particularly among low demand programs Results on family reunification were mixed, higher among high demand programs Small improvements in terms of employment and income gains

Housing Stability

Family Reunification

Employment

Income

Program Implications PSH is successful in facilitating housing stability for families with multiple problems and long histories of homeless Some tradeoffs between high and low demand programs Services should be tailored to the needs of families, including trauma-informed practices Positive relationships with staff are extremely important A focus on recovery is important

Policy Implications Mainstream resources must be available to create supportive housing for these vulnerable families The definition of chronic homelessness should reflect these unique needs of families –Ideal definition would include length of homelessness and other criteria/factors affecting families –Length of homelessness criteria may need to be modified to reflect the impact on children

Policy Implications, cont. Possible criteria specific to the needs of families –A parent with a diagnosable physical and/or mental disability –A parent who has experienced serious trauma –A parent reentering the community from jail or prison –A child with a serious medical or emotional disturbance/disability –Involvement with the child welfare system

Recommendations for Future Research More information about supportive housing outcomes Program elements that are most effective for families versus singles Which models work best for families with different characteristics Cost effectiveness of family permanent supportive housing