The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research

Despite HUD’s endorsement of transitional housing as an essential part of a comprehensive continuum of care, consumers, providers, and advocates have frequently disagreed on its value, on the best ways of linking services to housing, and on appropriate mechanisms and sources for funding transitional housing programs. Critics have emphasized the stigma associated with transitional programs as well as the diversion of resources that might otherwise serve to expand the supply of and access to affordable permanent housing; proponents counter that homeless families and individuals with multiple problems need help with more than housing alone if they are to achieve residential stability. To sort through the conflicting claims about transitional housing requires some consideration of the diversity of the programs thus labeled and what we do and don’t know about their impact on homelessness. We begin by clarifying what the concept encompasses; review the evolution of transitional housing; and describe variations in the major approaches developed for homeless families and individuals in terms of differences in target populations, physical structures, service intensity, and other program characteristics that cluster along a continuum with "high demand" service-intensive facilities at one end and "low demand" programs with flexible requirements and optional services at the other. Available research assessing the major models indicates that scattered-site transitional housing programs that convert to permanent housing constitute one effective (and cost effective) approach to helping families and possibly individuals exist from homelessness. Future research should not only test the relative effectiveness of different transitional program models but should compare transitional housing approaches to alternative strategies for ending homelessness for individuals and families. Lessons for Practitioners, Policy Makers, and Researchers Transitional housing is controversial. Critics view it as stigmatizing, de-stabilizing, and a drain on resources better used for permanent housing; proponents view is as the best way to ensure homeless families and individuals get the services that will enable them to attain and sustain self-sufficiency as well as permanent housing. Programs vary in numerous ways—including target populations, physical structure, service intensity, admission thresholds, and conditions and duration of tenure. Although there are almost limitless combinations of these dimensions, program characteristics tend to cluster along a continuum, with "high demand" (e.g., congregate, structured, service intensive) programs at one pole and "low demand" (e.g., dispersed, flexible criteria, optional services) at the other. Research on transitional housing indicates that adding low demand transitional housing to outreach or drop-in services for homeless individuals improve their likelihood of obtaining permanent housing. Transitional programs at the "high demand" end of the continuum usually serve individuals and families with multiple problems. Research suggests that highly structured facilities which double as treatment programs for people with severe mental illness and/or substance abuse problems improve housing and clinical outcomes for those who remain until they graduate, but they also have extremely high attrition rates. For most who enter them, they are not a route out of homelessness. Providers are encouraged to experiment with alternative approaches for those with multiple problems. Research findings show that scattered-site models of transitional housing that "convert" to subsidized permanent housing are a cost effective approach to helping families transition out of homelessness without the stigma and disruption of support networks that facility-based approaches may entail. Some variants of this model also add to the permanent housing stock by restoring deteriorated units. Convertible models have been http://aspe.hhs.gov/progsys/homeless/symposium/10.htm The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research 2 of 24 developed for individuals as well, and providers are encouraged to continue to develop this approach. Provider experience underscores the importance of issues of scale, community networks, and "fit" with the fabric of the community—not only to foster community acceptance of transitional housing programs but to enhance safety and stability for residents and neighbors alike. Transitional housing can only be effectively implemented in the context of a continuum of resources that includes adequate permanent housing and the supportive community-based services that can prevent returns to homelessness.