Housing First programs in congregate-site facilities: can one size fit all?

Abstract

The ‘Pathways to Housing’ Program (PHP) is an internationally recognized reference point for solutions to chronic homelessness espousing principles of ‘Housing First’. In Australian capital cities, the introduction of Housing First has mostly taken the form of congregate-site housing, unlike the scatter-site housing that has been closely associated with PHP in the United States. This has raised questions about whether the translation of the PHP model to Australia has resulted in a loss of fidelity to the ‘active ingredients’ that explain its success. Drawing on an evaluation of two congregate-site facilities in Tasmania, we show how tensions between program fidelity and local factors shaping the program assemblage, have compromised program success in relation to flexibility of service response and client agency and choice. Our findings challenge policy-makers and service providers to attend carefully to how successful overseas programs are adapted to different policy and service contexts to ensure that features critical to their success are not lost in translation.

Keywords:

• Homelessness
• Housing First
• congregate-site supported housing
• Common Ground
• realist evaluation
• policy lessons

Notes

1. Futher data sources drawn on in the evaluation were: CGT’s reporting submissions to Housing Tasmania; AHURI survey data from May and October 2013; and Menzies (UTas) survey data from March 2013.

2. The exception to this was noted in a small number of cases where minors were granted permission for short overnight stays.

3. We acknowledge this needs to be held in tension with the cons of scatter-site housing which research demonstrates can be socially isolating and lonely (Walker & Seasons, 2002).

4. It is not our intention to position congregate-site settings as only suitable for people with particular categories of needs such as ‘serious mental illness’ or ‘severe alcohol problems’ (these terms are drawn from other authors as noted in the references). Our point follows that congregate site housing is not a ‘one size fits all’ solution, and greater consideration should be given to which individuals would more likely benefit from this type of supported housing than others.