Service Provider Perspectives on the Differences between Place-Based and Scattered-Site Permanent Supportive Housing in Los Angeles County after the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health & Social Care in the Community Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1155/2024/8254034
Howard Padwa, Bikki Tran Smith, Taylor Harris, Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi, Madelyn Cooper, Carissa Loya, Randall Kuhn, Benjamin F. Henwood, Lillian Gelberg
{"title":"Service Provider Perspectives on the Differences between Place-Based and Scattered-Site Permanent Supportive Housing in Los Angeles County after the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Howard Padwa,&nbsp;Bikki Tran Smith,&nbsp;Taylor Harris,&nbsp;Roya Ijadi-Maghsoodi,&nbsp;Madelyn Cooper,&nbsp;Carissa Loya,&nbsp;Randall Kuhn,&nbsp;Benjamin F. Henwood,&nbsp;Lillian Gelberg","doi":"10.1155/2024/8254034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Background</i>. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is an evidence-based solution to chronic homelessness. There are two common PSH models: place-based (PB) programs where clients live in one building with services provided onsite and scattered-site (SS) programs, which use community apartments coupled with mobile case management and support. Understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of PB and SS is important for PSH planning and service delivery. This paper explores homeless service provider perspectives on these two models after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. <i>Methods</i>. Service providers (<i>N</i> = 37) from across 5 PSH agencies in Los Angeles that provided either PB or SS services during the pandemic participated in focus groups. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using template analysis, grounded theory, and inductive techniques. <i>Results</i>. Providers identified four major differences between PB and SS services: (1) challenges in finding placements; (2) managing relationships with landlords/property managers; (3) frequency of contact; and (4) community integration. Advantages of PB included ease of finding units, ease of managing relationships with landlords/property managers, greater ability to serve clients efficiently, more frequent client contact, and more community among residents. SS was seen to provide tenants with more opportunities to grow, live in healthier environments, and develop independence. During the pandemic, finding units for SS clients became more difficult, while differences between PB and SS related to frequency of contact and community integration became more attenuated. <i>Conclusions</i>. PB can be advantageous for clients with higher levels of acuity, whereas SS could be more appropriate for clients who are more stable and independent. PB programs are seen to have practical and logistical advantages, but some providers prefer SS services. Clients and providers should be matched to PSH configurations that best match their needs and preferences, and providers should be aware that public health emergencies may impact PB and SS settings differently.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":48195,"journal":{"name":"Health & Social Care in the Community","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/8254034","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health & Social Care in the Community","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/8254034","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. Permanent supportive housing (PSH) is an evidence-based solution to chronic homelessness. There are two common PSH models: place-based (PB) programs where clients live in one building with services provided onsite and scattered-site (SS) programs, which use community apartments coupled with mobile case management and support. Understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of PB and SS is important for PSH planning and service delivery. This paper explores homeless service provider perspectives on these two models after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. Service providers (N = 37) from across 5 PSH agencies in Los Angeles that provided either PB or SS services during the pandemic participated in focus groups. Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using template analysis, grounded theory, and inductive techniques. Results. Providers identified four major differences between PB and SS services: (1) challenges in finding placements; (2) managing relationships with landlords/property managers; (3) frequency of contact; and (4) community integration. Advantages of PB included ease of finding units, ease of managing relationships with landlords/property managers, greater ability to serve clients efficiently, more frequent client contact, and more community among residents. SS was seen to provide tenants with more opportunities to grow, live in healthier environments, and develop independence. During the pandemic, finding units for SS clients became more difficult, while differences between PB and SS related to frequency of contact and community integration became more attenuated. Conclusions. PB can be advantageous for clients with higher levels of acuity, whereas SS could be more appropriate for clients who are more stable and independent. PB programs are seen to have practical and logistical advantages, but some providers prefer SS services. Clients and providers should be matched to PSH configurations that best match their needs and preferences, and providers should be aware that public health emergencies may impact PB and SS settings differently.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
服务提供者对 COVID-19 大流行后洛杉矶县基于场所的永久支持性住房和分散场所的永久支持性住房之间差异的看法
背景。永久支持性住房(Permanent supportive housing,PSH)是一种基于证据的解决长期无家可归问题的方法。常见的永久支持性住房模式有两种:一种是基于场所的计划(PB),即客户住在一栋楼里,并在现场提供服务;另一种是分散场所计划(SS),即使用社区公寓,并提供流动的个案管理和支持服务。了解 "场所型 "和 "分散型 "计划的相对优缺点,对于 "场所型 "计划的规划和服务提供非常重要。本文探讨了 COVID-19 大流行后无家可归者服务提供者对这两种模式的看法。方法。来自洛杉矶 5 家在大流行期间提供 PB 或 SS 服务的 PSH 机构的服务提供者(N = 37)参加了焦点小组。对讨论进行记录、转录,并使用模板分析、基础理论和归纳技术进行分析。结果。提供者们指出了 PB 服务和 SS 服务之间的四大区别:(1) 寻找安置的挑战;(2) 处理与房东/物业经理的关系;(3) 接触的频率;以及 (4) 社区融合。PB 的优势包括容易找到安置单位、容易处理与房东/物业经理的关系、更有能力有效地为客户 提供服务、客户接触更频繁以及居民之间的社区融合。人们认为 SS 为租户提供了更多的成长机会、更健康的生活环境以及发展独立性的机会。在大流行病期间,为 SS 客户寻找住房变得更加困难,而 PB 与 SS 在接触频率和社区融合方面的差异则变得越来越小。结论PB 对病情较重的患者有利,而 SS 则更适合病情较稳定、独立性较强的患者。PB 计划被认为具有实用和后勤方面的优势,但一些服务提供者更喜欢 SS 服务。服务对象和服务提供者应选择最符合其需求和偏好的 PSH 配置,服务提供者应意识到公共卫生突发事件可能会对 PB 和 SS 设置产生不同的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
8.30%
发文量
423
期刊介绍: Health and Social Care in the community is an essential journal for anyone involved in nursing, social work, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, general practice, health psychology, health economy, primary health care and the promotion of health. It is an international peer-reviewed journal supporting interdisciplinary collaboration on policy and practice within health and social care in the community. The journal publishes: - Original research papers in all areas of health and social care - Topical health and social care review articles - Policy and practice evaluations - Book reviews - Special issues
期刊最新文献
The Place of Intuition in the Clinical Reasoning of Occupational Therapists: A Multiple-Case Study Service User Perspectives of Family Involvement and Mental Health Care Outcomes in Queensland Predictors of Discharge from Hospital to Supported Accommodation and Support Needs Once in Supported Accommodation for People with Serious Mental Illness in Scotland: A Linked National Dataset Study Assessing Social Networks: Validation of the Informal Supporter Readiness Inventory (ISRI) for Use in an Australian Context Urban-Rural Disparity and Economic Geography Variation in the Likelihood of Meeting Physical Activity Recommendation–Results from the Study of Community Sports in China
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1