Kriegel Liat S, Henwood Benjamin F, Gilmer Todd P
School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Montgomery Ross Fisher Building, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-0411, USA.
Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.
Community Ment Health J. 2016 Jan;52(1):46-55. doi: 10.1007/s10597-015-9946-5. Epub 2015 Oct 5.
This mixed-method study used administrative data from 68 supportive housing programs and evaluative and qualitative site visit data from a subset of four forensic programs to (a) compare fidelity to the Housing First model and residential client outcomes between forensic and nonforensic programs and (b) investigate whether and how providers working in forensic programs can navigate competing Housing First principles and criminal justice mandates. Quantitative findings suggested that forensic programs were less likely to follow a harm reduction approach to substance use and clients in those programs were more likely to live in congregate settings. Qualitative findings suggested that an interplay of court involvement, limited resources, and risk environments influenced staff decisions regarding housing and treatment. Existing mental health and criminal justice collaborations necessitate adaptation to the Housing First model to accommodate client needs.
这项混合方法研究使用了来自68个支持性住房项目的行政数据，以及来自四个法医项目子集中的评估和定性实地考察数据，以（a）比较法医项目和非法医项目对“住房优先”模式的忠诚度和居住客户结果，以及（b）调查在法医项目中工作的提供者是否以及如何在相互竞争的“住房优先”原则和刑事司法任务之间找到平衡。定量研究结果表明，法医项目采用减少伤害方法处理药物使用问题的可能性较小，这些项目中的客户更有可能居住在集体环境中。定性研究结果表明，法院干预、资源有限和风险环境的相互作用影响了工作人员在住房和治疗方面的决策。现有的心理健康和刑事司法合作需要适应“住房优先”模式，以满足客户需求。
