Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementation Challenges and Strategies for Moving On Initiatives in Permanent Supportive Housing

  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Moving On Initiatives (MOIs) assist individuals with the transition from permanent supportive housing to mainstream housing without the embedded supports. This emerging innovation has the potential to increase behavioral health system capacity and provide recipients with the opportunity to live in the least restrictive setting. However, few empirical studies have examined MOIs, and little is known about the implementation challenges providers face and strategies they use to realize these initiatives in practice. To identify these challenges and strategies, this study utilized over 2 years of observations at MOI “learning collaboratives,” as well as eight focus groups with implementation stakeholders. Analyses informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) identified challenges in the outer and inner service settings, as well as at the individual and innovation level. Outer setting challenges were most prominent in the data, and one non-CFIR construct, macrosystemic characteristics arose inductively. Implications for behavioral health policy and practice are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Benston EA. Housing Programs for Homeless Individuals with Mental Illness: Effects on Housing and Mental Health Outcomes. Psychiatric Services. 2015;66(8):806-816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Culhane DP, Metraux S, Hadley T. Public Service Reductions Associated with Placement of Homeless Persons with Severe Mental Illness in Supportive Housing. Housing Policy Debate. 2002;13(1):107-163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Martinez TE, Burt MR. Impact of Permanent Supportive Housing on the Use of Acute Care Health Services by Homeless Adults. Psychiatric Services. 2006;57(7):992-999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rog DJ, Marshall T, Dougherty RH, et al. Permanent supportive housing: assessing the evidence. Psychiatric Services. 2014;65(3):287–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wright BJ, Vartanian KB, Li HF, et al. Formerly Homeless People Had Lower Overall Health Care Expenditures After Moving Into Supportive Housing. Health Affairs. 2016;35(1):20-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The 2018 Annual Homeless Assessment (AHAR) Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2018.

  7. Corporation for Supportive Housing. Moving On. 2018. https://www.csh.org/moving-on. Accessed August 14, 2018.

  8. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. FY 2019 Continuum of Care (CoC) Application. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs; June 28, 2018.

  9. Scott AL, Kristel OV, Szymanski, AM. United Supportive Housing System (USHS) Move Up pilot—evaluation report. 2012. http://docs.csb.org/file-USHS-Move-Up-Pilot-Program-Report-Final.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2018.

  10. Harder and Company. “Moving On” from supportive housing evaluation report. 2016. http://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CSH-LA-Moving-On-Final-Report_06.30.16_EW_AE.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2018.

  11. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011;38:65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallace CM, et al. The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2006;21:S1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Padgett, DK. Qualitative methods in social work research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Corbin J, Strauss A. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 1990;19:418–427.

  15. Strauss A, Corbin J. Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes: Sage, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009;4:50–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Crabtree B, Miller W. Doing qualitative research. Newbury Park: Sage, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  18. MacFarlane A, O’Reilly-de Brún M. Using a theory-driven conceptual framework in qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research. 2012;22:607–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Coordinating Agency, personal communication, August 10, 2018

  20. Greenberg D, Gershenson C, Desmond M. Discrimination in evictions: empirical evidence and legal challenges. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. 2016;51:115–158.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Pager D, Shepherd H. The sociology of discrimination: racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology. 2008;34:181–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hutt M. This house is not your home: litigating landlord rejections of housing choice vouchers under the fair housing act. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems. 2018;51:391–429.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hamilton AB, Mittman BS, Campbell D, et al. Understanding the impact of external context on community-based implementation of an evidence-based HIV risk reduction intervention. BMC Health Service Research. 2018;18:11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Rubin RM, et al. Applying the policy ecology framework to Philadelphia’s behavioral health transformation efforts. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health. 2016;43:909–926.

  25. Raghavan R, Bright CL, Shadoin, AL. Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implementation Science. 2008;3:26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Denzin, NK. The research act: a theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Paradise J, Ross DC. Linking Medicaid and supportive housing: Opportunities and on-the-ground examples. 2017. https://www.kff.org/report-section/linking-medicaid-and-supportive-housing-issue-brief/. Accessed August 14, 2018.

  28. Tiderington E. “We Always Think You’re Here Permanently”: The Paradox of “Permanent” Housing and Other Barriers to Recovery-Oriented Practice in Supportive Housing Services. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2017;44(1):103-114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would also like to acknowledge the contributions of the study participants and the assistance of CSH (Corporation for Supportive Housing) in the execution of this project.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant from the Oak Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Social Work, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    Emmy Tiderington

  2. Corporation for Supportive Housing, New York, USA

    Janis Ikeda

  3. Graduate School of Social Service, Fordham University, New York, USA

    Antoine Lovell

Authors
  1. Emmy Tiderington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Janis Ikeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antoine Lovell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emmy Tiderington.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tiderington, E., Ikeda, J. & Lovell, A. Stakeholder Perspectives on Implementation Challenges and Strategies for Moving On Initiatives in Permanent Supportive Housing. J Behav Health Serv Res 47, 346–364 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-019-09680-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-019-09680-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation