Profiles of Permanent Supportive Housing Residents Related to Their Housing Conditions, Service Use, and Associated Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics

• Published in: Psychiatric quarterly Vol. 95; no. 2; pp. 203 - 219
• Main Authors: Fleury, Marie-Josée, Armoon, Bahram
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.06.2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Community-based programs; Empowerment; Female; Foster care; Harm reduction; Health services; Homeless people; Housing; Housing - statistics & numerical data; Housing conditions; Humans; Ill-Housed Persons - psychology; Ill-Housed Persons - statistics & numerical data; Integrated care; Intensive treatment; Male; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Middle Aged; Neighborhoods; Optimization; Original Paper; Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data; Psychiatry; Psychosocial factors; Public Health; Public Housing - statistics & numerical data; Quebec; Residents; Satisfaction; Self esteem; Sociodemographics; Sociology; Young Adult; Quebec; Permanent supportive housing; Service use; Profile; Unmet care needs
• ISSN: 0033-2720; 1573-6709; 1573-6709
• DOI: 10.1007/s11126-024-10071-0

As permanent supportive housing (PSH) is the main strategy promoted to reduce homelessness, understanding how PSH resident profiles may be differentiated is crucial to the optimization of PSH implementation – and a subject that hasn’t been studied yet. This study identified PSH resident profiles based on their housing conditions and service use, associated with their sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. In 2020–2021, 308 PSH residents from Quebec (Canada) were interviewed, with K-means cluster analysis produced to identify profiles and subsequent analyses to compare profiles and PSH resident characteristics. Of the three profiles identified, Profiles 1 and 2 (70% of sample) showed moderate or poor housing, neighborhood, and health conditions, and moderate or high unmet care needs and service use. Besides their “moderate” conditions, Profile 1 residents (52%) reported being in PSH for more than two years and being less educated. With the “worst” conditions and high service use, Profile 2 (18%) included younger individuals, while Profile 3 (30%) showed the “best” conditions and integrated individuals with more protective determinants (e.g., few in foster care, homelessness at older age, more self-esteem), with a majority living in single-site PSH and reporting higher satisfaction with support and community-based services. Profiles 1 and 2 may be provided with more psychosocial, crisis, harm reduction, and empowerment interventions, and peer helper support. Profile 2 may benefit from more intensive and integrated care, and better housing conditions. Continuous PSH may be sustained for Profile 3, with regular monitoring of service satisfaction and met needs.