Giving people free or discounted housing for an extended period of time, in addition to active and individualised support, leads to greater housing stability compared to any other approach.
Housing stability outcomes are worse for those receiving basic unconditional accommodation compared to all other interventions, including those who are receiving no intervention (the control group).
With the exception of basic, unconditional accommodation, all other accommodation-based services were better for housing stability compared to doing nothing.
As well as looking at what interventions work, and work best, the review also explored how interventions work, and what contextual factors are important when implementing accommodation-based services.
Context
Finding accommodation for those who need it can be hindered by supply and affordability in the housing market. State support for people who are homeless varies globally. If the support systems in place are not adequate, it can influence some of the public prejudice and stigma surrounding homelessness.
Clear identification of suitable users, referral routes and approaches to prioritisation
Effective and meaningful engagement with users and involving people in decisions about their housing and support, was a factor in outcomes and user satisfaction.
Many of the features of a person-centred and holistic approach including flexibility in support work, a non-judgemental approach and excellent communication.
The time and knowledge to assist with navigating systems, like those used to secure accommodation, for example, were also identified as enablers to housing stability.
Collaboration with other agencies is useful but difficult to achieve. Everyone needs to start on the same page and sing from the same hymn sheet to avoid confusion, misunderstanding and wasting resources.
Programme staff have a critical role to play. They need robust training and to be able to share in the vision of the intervention. This secures buy in and confidence in their ability to improve outcomes.
