Provider perspectives of housing programs for young adults experiencing homelessness

• Published in: Children and youth services review Vol. 112; p. 104898
• Main Authors: Semborski, Sara, Redline, Brian, Rhoades, Harmony, Henwood, Benjamin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.05.2020; Elsevier Science Ltd
• Subjects: Homeless people; Homeless services; Homeless youth; Housing; Housing first; Mirroring; Qualitative research; Residential mobility; Roles; Self sufficiency; Service provision; Supportive housing; Young adults; Supportive housing; Homeless services; Homeless youth; Service provision; Housing first; Homeless Services; Supportive Housing; Housing First; Service Provision
• ISSN: 0190-7409; 1873-7765
• DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104898

•Many youth-serving agencies have borrowed from adult homeless services, other age-related housing (e.g., college dorms), and/or have relied on skills acquired from experiences with young people, such as parenting, to inform practice.•Providers who reported taking on a number of roles (e.g., case manager, parent, etc.) come from housing models that offer a wider range of services with more intense programmatic structure.•While there has been an attempt to switch to a best fit approach with the development of prioritization tools, supportive housing for young adults largely uses a competing philosophies approach to housing through use of three distinct models: Transitional Housing Programs, Permanent Supportive Housing, and Rapid Rehousing. 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. 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. 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”). 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.