Stakeholder perspectives on sustainment of Housing First in a VA permanent supportive housing program

Objective To evaluate the sustainment of Housing First (HF) implementation in a permanent supportive housing program for homeless‐experienced veterans, 5 years after practice implementation. Study setting From 2016 to 2017, primary data were collected from providers and veterans in the Department of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health services research 2022-04, Vol.57 (2), p.374-384
Main Authors: Fletcher, Erica Hua, Gabrielian, Sonya, Flynn, Anthony W. P., Greenberg, Jared M., Hovsepian, Sona, Oberman, Rebecca S., Young, Alexander S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Adaptation
Analysis
Data collection
Employee turnover
Evaluation
Evidence-Based Practice
Fidelity
Flexibility
Government finance
Homeless people
Homeless persons
Homelessness
Housing
Housing First
Housing policy
Housing subsidies
Humans
Ill-Housed Persons
Implementation
Interviews
Leadership
Organizational aspects
Organizational factors
Partnerships
Public housing
Qualitative analysis
qualitative methods
Scarcity
Social aspects
Stakeholders
Sustainability
sustainment
Teams
United States
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Urban development
Veterans
Veterans Health
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective To evaluate the sustainment of Housing First (HF) implementation in a permanent supportive housing program for homeless‐experienced veterans, 5 years after practice implementation. Study setting From 2016 to 2017, primary data were collected from providers and veterans in the Department of Housing and Urban Development–VA Supportive Housing (HUD‐VASH) program at Los Angeles. Study design Guided by the integrated sustainability framework, we performed a mixed‐methods study to evaluate the sustainment of HF, an evidence‐based practice implemented to improve housing outcomes. To assess sustainment, we measured fidelity to HF in six of seven HUD‐VASH teams. These data were integrated with qualitative interviews with providers and veterans who described perceived sustainment to HF and contextual factors that supported or impeded sustainment. Data collection Fidelity to HF at 5 years after practice implementation, as a proxy for sustainment, was quantified via surveys with HUD‐VASH teams. HUD‐VASH providers (n = 51) and 31 veterans participated in semi‐structured interviews. Team‐based template analyses were used to develop an emergent understanding of stakeholder perspectives on HF sustainment. Principal findings Overall, HUD‐VASH teams reported HF sustainment. The lowest fidelity scores were found in the domains of client‐to‐staff ratios, frequency of client–provider contact, and time to housing. Qualitative findings indicated that outer contextual factors (e.g., housing scarcity) and organizational factors (e.g., staff turnover) impacted HF sustainment. Providers identified changes in leadership and unmet resource needs as impediments to practice sustainment. All stakeholders identified positively with the HF practice and believed that the approach benefited veterans. Conclusions This snapshot of HF sustainment demonstrates that this practice can be sustained over time. However, strong leadership, organizational resources, and community partnerships are needed. Adaptations to HF in response to outer contextual factors and organizational capacity may result in practice sustainment while allowing for flexibility in service provision.
ISSN:0017-9124
1475-6773
DOI:10.1111/1475-6773.13904