OBJECTIVE: Qualitative methods were used to investigate the perspectives of service providers working in Permanent Supportive Housing, Transitional Living Programs, and Rapid Rehousing for young adults who have experienced homelessness. The primary aim was to explore how housing models were designed, implemented, and the extent to which there is variability in how providers approach their work with young adults. METHODS: Data come from 26 housing service providers purposively sampled from supportive housing providers across the United States between October 2017 and July 2018. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a comparative case summary approach, grouped by program model. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis related to how specific housing models were developed (Stranded between systems: "No model to follow"), the strategies that providers took to support residents toward independence and self-sufficiency (Working toward independence and self-sufficiency: "No one-sized approach"), and the various roles that individual providers discussed fulfilling in their work with young adults (Shifting roles: "Whatever type of figure is needed"). DISCUSSION: While the overarching goals of supportive housing span across housing models, the methods and philosophies of service delivery differ, mirroring the programmatic structure of the model. Results point to a competing philosophies approach to housing as it delivers different philosophically oriented programming models for similar youth through Transitional Living Programs, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing models.
OBJECTIVE: Qualitative methods were used to investigate the perspectives of service providers working in Permanent Supportive Housing, Transitional Living Programs, and Rapid Rehousing for young adults who have experienced homelessness. The primary aim was to explore how housing models were designed, implemented, and the extent to which there is variability in how providers approach their work with young adults. METHODS: Data come from 26 housing service providers purposively sampled from supportive housing providers across the United States between October 2017 and July 2018. Interview transcripts were analyzed using a comparative case summary approach, grouped by program model. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the qualitative analysis related to how specific housing models were developed (Stranded between systems: "No model to follow"), the strategies that providers took to support residents toward independence and self-sufficiency (Working toward independence and self-sufficiency: "No one-sized approach"), and the various roles that individual providers discussed fulfilling in their work with young adults (Shifting roles: "Whatever type of figure is needed"). DISCUSSION: While the overarching goals of supportive housing span across housing models, the methods and philosophies of service delivery differ, mirroring the programmatic structure of the model. Results point to a competing philosophies approach to housing as it delivers different philosophically oriented programming models for similar youth through Transitional Living Programs, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing models.
Authors: Matthew H Morton; Amy Dworsky; Jennifer L Matjasko; Susanna R Curry; David Schlueter; Raúl Chávez; Anne F Farrell Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 5.012