Mixed Method Evaluation of a Transitional Housing Program

Background and Purpose: Transitional housing programs are designed to support individuals and families that experience homelessness by providing stable housing and access to benefits, resources, and opportunities to advance economic mobility. Transitional housing programs are critical in addressing systemic issues of affordable housing, particularly with African American women and children who experience disproportionate barriers to attaining stable housing. Despite transitional housing programs presence in urban settings, there is limited research on the experiences, benefits, and challenges of transitional housing programs.

Methods: This study involved a mixed method approach of an urban transitional housing program, including administrative data, a random sample of case files, and semi-structured interviews. Frequencies and descriptive statistics were used to analyze administrative data, including benefit and resource attainment, length of stay, and exit destination. Content analyses were used for the case files, that included client case notes, applications, and employment histories. Semi-structured interviews included questions on participant experiences in the program, perceived benefits, challenges, and areas for program improvement. Semi-structured interviewers were recorded and transcribed, coded by two team members, assessed for interrater agreement, and categorized by theme.

Results: There were a total of 226 participants included in the administrative data analysis. Almost all participants reported experiencing homelessness at program entry (211 out of 213), with an average length of time homeless of seven months (range=72). The average length of stay in the program was 18.96 months, with 2.36 benefits, on average, attained. A limited number of participants reported housing situation at exit, but almost half (n=21; 42%) were able to secure a rental or other form of stable housing. From the case files, the primary findings included: the majority of program participants identified as African American and single; half of the participants reported having a high school diploma or GED; the majority reported having no criminal or substance use history; and almost half of the participants reported a history of depression or anxiety. The primary reason for applying to the program included the need for stability, and expressed goals were having a stable home for their children, financial literacy, and educational attainment to earn higher wages. The primary themes from the semi-structured interviews included: pathways to housing instability (e.g., interpersonal conflict and violence); program satisfaction (improved sense of physical safety); program challenges (desire for improved living conditions, and educational/employment opportunities); work and income (many residents limited to employment in service/retail settings); and parenting (limited family support, appreciative of childcare).

Conclusions: There is limited research on the effectiveness of transitional housing programs. While the current study involved mixed findings regarding the experiences of program participants and purported outcomes, the study contributes to the housing literature by identifying the strengths and challenges of transitional housing programs, as well as the need for more research, evaluation, and investigation. An overarching theme in the study relates to the need for clearly defined pathways for transitional housing participant goal attainment, including education, employment, and transitioning to stable housing.