Upload
feantsa
View
71
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation given by Tim Aubry and Geoffrey Nelson, CAN at the Ninth European Research Conference on Homelessness, "Homelessness in Times of Crisis", Warsaw, September 2014 http://feantsaresearch.org/spip.php?article222&lang=en
Citation preview
Outcome Findings of Canada’s At Home / Chez Soi Housing First Demonstration Program
Tim Aubry, National Research Team, At Home/Chez Soi Project, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Geoffrey Nelson, National Research Team, At Home/Chez Soi Project, Dept. of Psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 9th European Research Conference – Homelessness in Times of Crisis, FEANTSA, Warsaw, Friday, September 19, 2014
/ 2
Overview of Presentation
1. Study design
2. Description of Housing First Interventions
3. Characteristics of participants
4. Outcome findings
5. Costing findings
6. People with additonal needs
/ 3
Study Design
Pragmatic, multi-site, randomized, mixed methods field trial in five sites across Canada (Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, & Moncton)
Investigation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Housing First in Canadian contexts
Model being tested with support at two levels of intensity (high needs = ACT) (moderate needs = ICM) vs. usual care
/ 4
At Home/Chez Soi Housing First Approach
+
Subsidized Housing
Support (ACT or ICM)
/ 5
Characteristics of Housing
• No pre-conditions for housing
• Scattered site private market units
• Maximum of 30% of income for rent
• Participants hold their own lease
• Rights and responsibilities as a tenant
/ 6
Types of Support Services
Assertive Community Treatment (ACT): ACT
• Multi-disciplinary team / wrap around service
• Services and crisis coverage are available 24/7
• Staff to client ratio of 1:10
Intensive Case Management teams (ICM):
• Case managers with individual caseloads
• Outreach and coordination with other services
• Teams available 12 hours per day
• Staff to client ratio of 1:15
/ 7
Who is in At Home/Chez Soi?
• 2148 participants
• 1158 in Housing First (HF)
• 990 in Treatment as Usual (TAU)
• Primarily middle-aged
• 32% of participants are women
• 22% of participants identified as being an Aboriginal person
• Typical total time homeless in participants’ lifetimes is nearly 5 years
• All have one or more serious mental health issue
• Majority have a concurrent disorder
• More than 90% had at least one chronic physical health problem
/ 8
Housing Outcomes of participants
Close to 1,000 Canadians with significant histories of homelessness were successfully housed through At Home / Chez Soi
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Housed all of the time Housed some of the time Housed none of the time
Percentage of participants housed in the last six months of the study
Housing First TAU
/ 9
Housing: Stability – by Program
Percentage of time housed
/ 10
Housing: Stability – by Site Percentage of time housed
/ 11
Social Outcome Findings
HF participants in both ICM and ACT reported greater improvements than TAU participants in:
Community Functioning
Quality of Life
/ 12
Social Outcomes: Community Functioning
Average post BL differences are SIG
for both ICM and ACT
/ 13
Social Outcomes: Quality of Life
Average post BL differences are SIG
for both ICM and ACT
/ 14
Health Outcome Findings
• Both groups report improvements in:
Substance use
Mental health
• Both groups maintained their physical health
/ 15
HN average intervention cost nationally: $22,257 per person per year
$10 invested in HF for High Need group : Average savings of $9.60
Cost Analysis – High Need Group (ACT)
$-
$15.000
$30.000
$45.000
$60.000
$75.000
$90.000
TAU Housing First TAU Housing First
Baseline 0M to 21/24M
HF
/ 16
HN Group: Major cost offsets are office visits, hospitals, shelters, visits with other providers and jail or prison
Cost Analysis – High Need Group (ACT)
$(5.000)
$(4.000)
$(3.000)
$(2.000)
$(1.000)
$0
Office visits (non-study) Hospital (Physical)
Emergency shelter
Home visits (non-study) Jail/prison
/ 17
$10 invested in HF for Moderate-Need group : Average savings of $3.42
MN average intervention cost nationally: $14,177 per person per year
Cost Analysis – Moderate Need Group (ICM)
- $
10.000 $
20.000 $
30.000 $
40.000 $
50.000 $
60.000 $
TAU Housing First TAU Housing First
Baseline 0M to 21/24M
HF
/ 18
MN Group: Major cost offsets are shelters and SROs, but costs related to office visits to non study providers increase
Cost Analysis- Moderate Need Group (ICM)
$(2.500)
$(2.000)
$(1.500)
$(1.000)
$(500)
$0
$500
$1.000
$1.500Emergency shelter SRO (w support) Office visits (non-study)
/ 19
Cost Analysis – based on Service use (High Users)
- $
50.000 $
100.000 $
150.000 $
200.000 $
250.000 $
TD-TAU TD-HF TD-TAU TD-HF
Baseline 0M to 21/24M
HF
$10 invested in HF for TOP DECILE group : Average savings of $21.72
TD – Top Decile
/ 20
Cost Analysis – based on Service use (High Users)
$(20.000)
$(15.000)
$(10.000)
$(5.000)
$0
$5.000
Hospital (Psychiatric)
Home visits (non-study) Jail/prison
Office visits (non-study)
Hospital (Physical)
Contacts with the police ER Visits
Crisis housing
SRO (w support)
Psychiatric residential program
Major cost offsets are hospitals, home visits, jail/prison office visits
/ 21
Cost Analysis
Overall Cost Analysis
• Housing First costs $17,735 per person per year on average
• Over the 2-year period following participant enrolment HF services resulted in average reductions of $12,073 in service costs per person.
• Thus every $10 invested in HF services saved an average of $6.81.
• The main cost offsets included: hospital (psychiatric), emergency shelter, hospital (physical) and office visits (non-study)
Cost Analysis based on High Service Users
• Among the 10% who prior to study entry had been using the most services, savings are even more dramatic. This group includes both moderate and high need participants (ICM and ACT)
• The intervention cost $19,582 per person per year on average. Over the 2-year period following participant enrolment every $10 invested in HF saved an average of $21.72.
/ 22
People with Additional Needs
• HF worked well for clients with diverse ethnocultural backgrounds and
circumstances. However for a small group of participants (about 13%)
from whom HF as currently delivered did not result in stable housing in
the first year.
• This group tends to have longer histories of homelessness, lower
educational levels, more connection to street-based social networks,
more serious mental health conditions.
• However, these variables although significant were not strong
predictors of encountering housing difficulties in the first year.
• Alternative approaches to addressing the unique needs of these clients
were tried in some cities.
/ 23
Consumer Narrative Sub-sample
Narrative sub-sample comparable to the full sample
• N=197 at 18-months, 10% of the total sample
• No significant differences on more than 50 variables for full and sub-samples
• Participants interviewed at baseline and 18-months
• 10% attrition rate over time, N=219 at baseline
• 13 life domains re: changes – e.g., typical day, education, work, housing
• Each interview coded for life changes – positive, mixed/neutral, negative (Kappa=.77 for inter-rater reliability)
/ 24
Consumer Narrative Sub-sample
Coding example
• Positive life change – “This is the first time, you know, that I’ve had a home… that I actually feel, like I’ve had supportive housing before, but I didn’t feel like I was safe. And, this is the first place like I… feel like I love to go home…I feel so safe. And…being safe is a major issue for me, you know?”
• Mixed/neutral life change – “That’s what life is, cause it’s just like I said, like picking up, losing it all, picking up, losing it all, picking up, losing it all.”
• Negative life change – “They discharged me to a hotel. I left the next day. It was noisy, bug-infested, full of drugs.”
/ 25
Positive, Mixed/neutral, and Negative Life Changes by Site and by Treatment Condition
Site HF – Type of Change TAU – Type of Change
Positive Mixed/neutral
Negative Positive Mixed/neutral
Negative
Moncton 6 (75.0%) 2 (25.0%) 0 (0%) 1 (12.5%) 3 (37.5%) 4 (50.0%)
Montreal 19 (70.3%) 2 (7.4%) 6 (22.3%) 5 (27.7%) 1 (5.6%) 12 (66.7%)
Toronto 15 (71.4%) 3 (14.3%) 3 (14.3%) 6 (50.0%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (33.3%)
Vancouver 12 (48.0%) 12 (48.0%) 1 (4.0%) 6 (33.3%) 9 (50.0%) 3 (16.7%)
Winnipeg 15 (83%) 13 (17%) 0 (0%) 3 (20.0%) 10 (6.7%) 2 (13.3%)
All Sites 67 (61%) 32 (29%) 10 (10%) 21 (30%) 25 (35%) 25 (35%)
Mantel Haenszel χ2=28.5, df=1, p=.0000001
/ 26
Summary of Key Findings
1. Housing First is doable in Canadian cities
2. Fidelity to a Housing First model is essential
3. Housing First can rapidly end homeless
4. Housing First produces other positive outcomes
5. Housing First makes good use of public dollars
6. A small minority of individuals present with additional needs and fail to settle in HF
/ 27
Acknowledgements
This presentation: Carol Adair, David Streiner, Brianna Kopp, Scott Veldhuizen, Eric Latimer, Paula Goering
The national At Home/Chez Soi project team: Jayne Barker, PhD, (2008-11), Cameron Keller (2011-14), and Catharine Hume (2014-present) MHCC National Project Leads; Paula Goering, RN, PhD, Research Lead, and approximately 40 investigators from across Canada and the US. In addition there were 5 site coordinators and numerous service and housing providers as well as persons with lived experience.
This research has been made possible through a financial contribution from Health Canada to the Mental Health Commission of Canada. The views expressed herein solely represent the authors.
/ 28
At Home/Chez Soi: National Research Team
• Paula Goering, CAMH, University of Toronto, Research Lead
• Carol Adair, University of Calgary
• Tim Aubry, University of Ottawa
• Jeffrey Hoch, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto, University of Western Ontario
• Geoff Nelson, Wilfrid Laurier University
• Myra Piat, Douglas Mental Health University Institute; McGill University
• David Streiner, Baycrest Hospital; University of Toronto
• Sam Tsemberis, Pathways to Housing, Inc
/ 29
At Home/Chez Soi Local Leads
Moncton: Tim Aubry, University of Ottawa; & Jimmy Bourque, Université de Moncton
Toronto: Stephen Hwang, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto; Vicki Stergiopoulos, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto; & Pat O’Campo, St. Michael’s Hospital, University of Toronto
Montreal: Eric Latimer, Institut Douglas, McGill University; & Christopher McAll, Université de Montréal
Winnipeg: Jino Distastio, University of Winnipeg; & Jitender Sareen, University of Manitoba
Vancouver: Julian Somers, Simon Fraser University; Michael Krausz, University of British Columbia; & Jim Frankish, University of British Columbia
/ 30
Visit: www.mentalhealthcommission.ca (for detailed information and reports)
Visit: www.nfb.hereathome.ca (for video short stories about the project and our participants)
Visit: www.housingfirsttoolkit.ca (for the Canadian Housing First Toolkit)
Questions? Contact: [email protected] or [email protected]