Association of Temporary Financial Assistance With Housing Stability Among US Veterans in the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program | Health Policy | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  US Locations of the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Grantees Included in the Study From Fiscal Year 2016 to Fiscal Year 2018
US Locations of the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Grantees Included in the Study From Fiscal Year 2016 to Fiscal Year 2018
Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics of Supportive SSVF Program Enrollees Among Those Who Did and Did Not Receive TFAa
Descriptive Statistics of Supportive SSVF Program Enrollees Among Those Who Did and Did Not Receive TFAa
Table 2.  Unadjusted Percentage of Veterans Obtaining Stable Housing After Exit From the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program
Unadjusted Percentage of Veterans Obtaining Stable Housing After Exit From the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program
Table 3.  Association of Receipt of TFA With Stable Housing
Association of Receipt of TFA With Stable Housing
Table 4.  Multivariable Regression Results of the Association Between the Amount of TFA and Stable Housing Outcomea
Multivariable Regression Results of the Association Between the Amount of TFA and Stable Housing Outcomea
1.
Beijer  U, Wolf  A, Fazel  S.  Prevalence of tuberculosis, hepatitis C virus, and HIV in homeless people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(11):859-870. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70177-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Brown  RT, Kiely  DK, Bharel  M, Mitchell  SL.  Geriatric syndromes in older homeless adults.   J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):16-22. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1848-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Byrd  B. The emerging crisis of aged homelessness: what can be done to help? Health Affairs blog. February 27, 2020. Accessed July 1, 2020. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200226.712105/full/
4.
Kim  DH, Daskalakis  C, Plumb  JD,  et al.  Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors among individuals in low socioeconomic communities and homeless shelters.   Fam Community Health. 2008;31(4):269-280. doi:10.1097/01.FCH.0000336090.37280.2e PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Lee  TC, Hanlon  JG, Ben-David  J,  et al.  Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in homeless adults.   Circulation. 2005;111(20):2629-2635. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.510826 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Fazel  S, Khosla  V, Doll  H, Geddes  J.  The prevalence of mental disorders among the homeless in western countries: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.   PLoS Med. 2008;5(12):e225. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050225 PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Topolovec-Vranic  J, Ennis  N, Colantonio  A,  et al.  Traumatic brain injury among people who are homeless: a systematic review.   BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1059. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1059 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Torchalla  I, Strehlau  V, Li  K, Krausz  M.  Substance use and predictors of substance dependence in homeless women.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118(2-3):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.03.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions. Healthcare for the homeless: homelessness is bad for your health. June 2012. Accessed July 1, 2020. https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/life-sciences-and-healthcare/articles/healthcare-for-the-homeless.html
10.
Fazel  S, Geddes  JR, Kushel  M.  The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations.   Lancet. 2014;384(9953):1529-1540. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61132-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Hibbs  JR, Benner  L, Klugman  L,  et al.  Mortality in a cohort of homeless adults in Philadelphia.   N Engl J Med. 1994;331(5):304-309. doi:10.1056/NEJM199408043310506 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Morrison  DS.  Homelessness as an independent risk factor for mortality: results from a retrospective cohort study.   Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(3):877-883. doi:10.1093/ije/dyp160 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Hwang  SW.  Mortality among men using homeless shelters in Toronto, Ontario.   JAMA. 2000;283(16):2152-2157. doi:10.1001/jama.283.16.2152 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Policy and Global Affairs; Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Committee on an Evaluation of Permanent Supportive Housing Programs for Homeless Individuals.  Permanent Supportive Housing:  Evaluating the Evidence for Improving Health Outcomes Among People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. National Academies Press; 2018.
15.
Fitzpatrick-Lewis  D, Ganann  R, Krishnaratne  S, Ciliska  D, Kouyoumdjian  F, Hwang  SW.  Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review.   BMC Public Health. 2011;11:638. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-638 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Brown  RT, Miao  Y, Mitchell  SL,  et al.  Health outcomes of obtaining housing among older homeless adults.   Am J Public Health. 2015;105(7):1482-1488. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302539 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Wolitski  RJ, Kidder  DP, Pals  SL,  et al; Housing and Health Study Team.  Randomized trial of the effects of housing assistance on the health and risk behaviors of homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV.   AIDS Behav. 2010;14(3):493-503. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9643-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
O’Campo  P, Stergiopoulos  V, Nir  P,  et al.  How did a Housing First intervention improve health and social outcomes among homeless adults with mental illness in Toronto? two-year outcomes from a randomised trial.   BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e010581. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010581 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Hanratty  M.  Do local economic conditions affect homelessness? impact of area housing market factors, unemployment, and poverty on community homeless rates.   Housing Policy Debate. 2017;27(4):640-655. doi:10.1080/10511482.2017.1282885 Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Caton  CL, Hasin  D, Shrout  PE,  et al.  Risk factors for homelessness among indigent urban adults with no history of psychotic illness: a case-control study.   Am J Public Health. 2000;90(2):258-263. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.2.258 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Shelton  KH, Taylor  PJ, Bonner  A, van den Bree  M.  Risk factors for homelessness: evidence from a population-based study.   Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(4):465-472. doi:10.1176/ps.2009.60.4.465 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Washington  DL, Yano  EM, McGuire  J, Hines  V, Lee  M, Gelberg  L.  Risk factors for homelessness among women veterans.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(1):82-91. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0237 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Folsom  DP, Hawthorne  W, Lindamer  L,  et al.  Prevalence and risk factors for homelessness and utilization of mental health services among 10,340 patients with serious mental illness in a large public mental health system.   Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(2):370-376. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.370 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Edens  EL, Kasprow  W, Tsai  J, Rosenheck  RA.  Association of substance use and VA service–connected disability benefits with risk of homelessness among veterans.   Am J Addict. 2011;20(5):412-419. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2011.00166.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Odell  SM, Commander  MJ.  Risk factors for homelessness among people with psychotic disorders.   Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000;35(9):396-401. doi:10.1007/s001270050256 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Vandenbroucke  JP, von Elm  E, Altman  DG,  et al; STROBE Initiative.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.   Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):W163-W194. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homeless Management Information System. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/hmis
28.
Byrne  T, Treglia  D, Culhane  D, Kuhn  J, Kane  V.  Predictors of homelessness among families and single adults after exit from homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing programs: evidence from the Department of Veterans Affairs Supportive Services for Veteran Families program.   Housing Policy Debate. 2015;26(1):252-275. doi:10.1080/10511482.2015.1060249 Google ScholarCrossref
29.
Caton  CL, Dominguez  B, Schanzer  B,  et al.  Risk factors for long-term homelessness: findings from a longitudinal study of first-time homeless single adults.   Am J Public Health. 2005;95(10):1753-1759. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.063321 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Tsai  J, Hoff  RA, Harpaz-Rotem  I.  One-year incidence and predictors of homelessness among 300,000 U.S. veterans seen in specialty mental health care.   Psychol Serv. 2017;14(2):203-207. doi:10.1037/ser0000083 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Charlson  ME, Pompei  P, Ales  KL, MacKenzie  CR.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.   J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Jencks  SF, Schuster  A, Dougherty  GB, Gerovich  S, Brock  JE, Kind  AJH.  Safety-net hospitals, neighborhood disadvantage, and readmissions under Maryland’s all-payer program: an observational study.   Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(2):91-98. doi:10.7326/M16-2671 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Kind  AJ, Jencks  S, Brock  J,  et al.  Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: a retrospective cohort study.   Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(11):765-774. doi:10.7326/M13-2946 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Austin  PC.  An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies.   Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399-424. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Hernán  MA, Brumback  B, Robins  JM.  Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men.   Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):561-570. doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Hernán  MA, Brumback  BA, Robins  JM.  Estimating the causal effect of zidovudine on CD4 count with a marginal structural model for repeated measures.   Stat Med. 2002;21(12):1689-1709. doi:10.1002/sim.1144 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Austin  PC, Grootendorst  P, Anderson  GM.  A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.   Stat Med. 2007;26(4):734-753. doi:10.1002/sim.2580 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Terza  JV.  Two-stage residual inclusion estimation in health services research and health economics.   Health Serv Res. 2018;53(3):1890-1899. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12714 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Muller  CJ, MacLehose  RF.  Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations.   Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(3):962-970. doi:10.1093/ije/dyu029 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
40.
Austin  PC, Stuart  EA.  Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies.   Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661-3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Staiger  D, Stock  J.  Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments.   Econometrica. 1997;65:557-586. doi:10.2307/2171753 Google ScholarCrossref
42.
Taylor  J. Housing Assistance for Households Experiencing Homelessness. Dissertation. The New School; 2014.
43.
Rodriguez  JM, Eidelman  TA.  Homelessness interventions in Georgia: rapid re-housing, transitional housing, and the likelihood of returning to shelter.   Housing Policy Debate. 2017;27(6):825-842. doi:10.1080/10511482.2017.1313292 Google ScholarCrossref
44.
Shah  MF, Liu  Q, Patton  D, Felver  B. Impact of housing assistance on outcomes for homeless families: an evaluation of the Ending Family Homelessness Pilot. August 2015. Accessed July 15, 2020. https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/rda/reports/research-11-219.pdf
45.
Gubits  D, Shinn  B, Bell  S,  et al.  Family Options Study: Short-term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2015.
46.
Gubits  D, Shinn  M, Wood  M,  et al.  Family Options Study: 3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2016.
47.
Towe  VL, Wiewel  EW, Zhong  Y, Linnemayr  S, Johnson  R, Rojas  J.  A randomized controlled trial of a rapid re-housing intervention for homeless persons living with HIV/AIDS: impact on housing and HIV medical outcomes.   AIDS Behav. 2019;23(9):2315-2325. doi:10.1007/s10461-019-02461-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Berg  S.  The HEARTH Act.   Cityscape. 2013;15(1):317-323.Google Scholar
49.
Culhane  D, Metraux  S, Byrne  T.  A prevention-centered approach to homelessness assistance: a paradigm shift?   Housing Policy Debate. 2011;21(2):295-315. doi:10.1080/10511482.2010.536246 Google ScholarCrossref
50.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, part 1: point-in-time estimates of homelessness. January 2020. Accessed November 15, 2020. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2019-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
51.
Evans  WN, Sullivan  JX, Wallskog  M.  The impact of homelessness prevention programs on homelessness.   Science. 2016;353(6300):694-699. doi:10.1126/science.aag0833 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Hernán  MA, Robins  JM.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data.   J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(7):578-586. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.029496 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Health Policy
    February 10, 2021

    Association of Temporary Financial Assistance With Housing Stability Among US Veterans in the Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Informatics, Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center, Veterans Affairs (VA) Salt Lake City Health Care System, Salt Lake City, Utah
    • 2Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City
    • 3VA National Center on Homelessness Among Veterans, Washington, DC
    • 4Boston University School of Social Work, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 5Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Bedford VA Medical Center, Bedford, Massachusetts
    • 6Department of Population Health Science, The University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City
    • 7Department of Family Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles
    • 8VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California
    • 9Birmingham VA Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama
    • 10Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham
    • 11The University of Texas Health Sciences Center School of Public Health, San Antonio
    • 12Department of Health Behavior, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, Birmingham
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2):e2037047. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37047
    Key Points

    Question  Is temporary financial assistance (TFA) associated with improved housing outcomes among US veterans experiencing housing instability?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 41 969 veterans enrolled in the Supportive Services for Veteran Families program, veterans who received TFA were significantly more likely than those who did not receive TFA to exit the program with a stable housing destination.

    Meaning  Results of this study suggest that short-term financial assistance for housing-related expenses may be a useful tool for addressing homelessness.

    Abstract

    Importance  Temporary financial assistance (TFA) for housing-related expenses is a key component of interventions to prevent homelessness or to quickly house those who have become homeless. Through the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program, the department provides TFA to veterans in need of housing assistance.

    Objective  To assess the association between TFA and housing stability among US veterans enrolled in the SSVF program.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective cohort study analyzed data on veterans who were enrolled in the SSVF program at 1 of 203 partner organizations in 49 US states and territories. Some veterans had repeat SSVF episodes, but only the first episodes were included in this analysis. An episode was defined as the period between entry into and exit from the program occurring between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018.

    Exposures  Receipt of TFA.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The main outcome was stable housing, defined as permanent, independent residence with payment by the program client or housing subsidy after exit from the SSVF program. Covariates included demographic characteristics, monthly income and source, public benefits, health insurance, use of other VA programs for homelessness, comorbidities, and geographic location. Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression, inverse probability of treatment weighting, and instrumental variable approaches were used.

    Results  The overall cohort consisted of 41 969 veterans enrolled in the SSVF program, of whom 29 184 (mean [SD] age, 50.4 [12.9] years; 25 396 men [87.0%]) received TFA and 12 785 (mean [SD] age, 50.0 [13.3] years; 11 229 men [87.8%]) did not receive TFA. The mean (SD) duration of SSVF episodes was 90.5 (57.7) days. A total of 69.5% of SSVF episodes involved receipt of TFA, and the mean (SD) amount of TFA was $6070 ($7272). Stable housing was obtained in 81.4% of the episodes. Compared with those who did not receive TFA, veterans who received TFA were significantly more likely to have stable housing outcomes (risk difference, 0.253; 95% CI, 0.240-0.265). An association between the amount of TFA received and stable housing was also found, with risk differences ranging from 0.168 (95% CI, 0.149-0.188) for those who received $0 to $2000 in TFA to 0.226 (95% CI, 0.203-0.249) for those who received more than $2000 to $4000 in TFA.

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study found that receipt of TFA through the SSVF program was associated with increased rates of stable housing. These results may inform national policy debates regarding the optimal solutions to prevent and reduce housing instability.

    Introduction

    Lack of stable housing can have important implications for health and health care utilization. Compared with the general population in the US, homeless individuals have higher rates of infectious diseases (eg, tuberculosis, hepatitis C virus infection, and HIV infection),1 age-related comorbidities,2,3 poorly controlled chronic conditions,4,5 and neuropsychiatric disorders.6-8 In addition, housing instability has been associated with high rates of mortality9,10 among people experiencing long-term11,12 or short-term homelessness.13 A review14 concluded that, outside specific conditions, data have not shown an overall health benefit associated with housing but also noted that housing often serves as the prerequisite to engaging in more regular care. Other studies have reported that housing may be associated with improved physical and mental health outcomes as well as social outcomes, such as fewer encounters with the criminal justice system.15-18

    A number of factors are associated with homelessness, including local economic conditions, such as lack of affordable housing and poverty rates,19 and personal circumstances, such as financial difficulties,20,21 unemployment,22 mental illness,22-24 substance use disorders,21,23,25 and lack of health insurance. Programs that provide financial assistance for housing-related expenses with a goal of facilitating housing for previously homeless individuals as quickly as possible may be associated with better health outcomes.

    Since October 2011, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has partnered with community organizations (called grantees) to provide housing support and services through the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) program. A key component of the SSVF program is temporary financial assistance (TFA), which provides funds for rent, utility bills, security deposit, and other housing-related expenses for veterans who have lost or are at risk of losing stable housing. The goal of housing-related TFA is to prevent homelessness or to quickly house those who have become homeless to prevent more costly interventions later. The SSVF program is described in more detail in the eAppendix in the Supplement. In this study, we assessed the association between TFA and housing stability outcomes among veterans enrolled in the SSVF program.

    Methods
    Study Design and Population

    This cohort study used data on veterans enrolled in the SSVF program through grantees throughout the US. We used administrative data from the SSVF program to construct a data set of all SSVF episodes occurring between fiscal years (FYs) October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. A veteran’s SSVF episode was defined as the period from the date of enrollment in the SSVF program to the date of program exit. This study was approved by the institutional review board at the University of Utah, which waived informed consent because the research presented no more than minimal risk or harm to participants. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.26

    Episode-level TFA data can be unreliable because of the variability in data entry quality across grantees, especially for data from the early period of the SSVF program. However, at the end of each FY, grantees are required to report to the SSVF program office the dollar amounts of TFA (overall and by type of TFA) distributed to veterans during that FY. These end-of-year grantee-level TFA data were available for FYs 2016 to 2018. To ensure that analyses were based on the most reliable episode-level TFA data, we retained only data for episodes that began and ended within the same FY and for grantees in which the sum of TFA dollars provided to individual veterans was no more than 25% different (larger or smaller) from the monetary value of TFA from the end-of-year grantee-level data. This approach accounted for 203 of the 337 grantees (60.2%) between FYs 2016 and 2018. The Figure shows the locations of the SSVF program grantees included in our analysis. Although some veterans had repeated SSVF episodes, we included only the veteran’s first episode in this analysis.

    Data

    The Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) is used to record and store a set of standardized client-level information on characteristics of homeless individuals and the services provided to them through federally funded assistance programs.27 We extracted these HMIS data to construct our analytic data set, including episode entry and exit dates, demographic characteristics, employment and educational status, and the type and amount of TFA received through the SSVF program. In addition, we captured enrollment in other VA homeless programs from the Homeless Operations Management and Evaluation System, which tracks homeless veterans as they move through the VA’s homeless programs. We obtained comorbidities data from the VA’s electronic health records stored in the Corporate Data Warehouse, and health care cost data were from the VA Managerial Cost Accounting system. Data from these various sources were linked and were accessed using an identification number unique to each veteran.

    Outcome

    The primary outcome was stable housing, defined as permanent, independent residence with payment by the program client or housing subsidy after exit from the SSVF program. We constructed this variable on the basis of a veteran’s housing destination at the end of an SSVF episode as recorded in the HMIS by a case manager. A complete list of exit destinations is provided in eTable 1 in the Supplement.

    Independent Variables

    The key independent variables in these analyses were the characteristics of the TFA received by a veteran during an SSVF episode. We characterized TFA as binary (any TFA or no TFA) and as categorical according to the total amount of TFA received during the SSVF episode ($0, >$0 to $2000, >$2000 to $4000, >$4000 to $6000, or >$6000). We created indicators for the type of TFA (ie, rent, security deposit, utilities, moving expenses, other benefits, transportation, and childcare).

    Other independent variables were included to reduce confounding in the modeled association between TFA and stable housing. These variables were selected on the basis of previous research that identified factors associated with homelessness.28-30 Demographic variables included age, sex, presence of a spouse or partner, number of children, and race/ethnicity. Socioeconomic variables included total monthly income, educational level, employment status, homelessness at SSVF program entry, and an indicator for whether the veteran was homeless in the previous 3 years. Indicators for non-TFA services accessed during the SSVF episode included case management, outreach, assistance with VA benefits, assistance with non-VA benefits, direct provision of benefits, and other benefits. Additional variables included indicators for the types of income received, health insurance, and enrollment in other VA homelessness programs. Additional independent variables included the Charlson Comorbidity Index,31 mental health diagnoses, VA health care cost in the 365 days before the SSVF episode start date, rurality, distance to the nearest VA medical center, distance to the nearest VA community-based outpatient clinic, and FY of the SSVF episode. We also included the zip code area deprivation index.32,33

    Statistical Analysis

    We compared the summary measures of independent variables between the TFA and non-TFA recipient groups using a 2-sided t test for continuous variables and a 2-sided χ2 test for categorical variables. We assessed the association between TFA and the stable housing outcome using 3 different statistical approaches, (the strengths and weaknesses of which are described in the eAppendix in the Supplement.

    In our first approach, which was the primary analysis, we fit multivariable mixed-effects logistic regressions with a random effect for grantees to the data, controlling for the aforementioned covariates. As a secondary analysis, we used propensity scores to conduct inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) to balance observed patient characteristics across veterans who received TFA and those who did not receive TFA.34-36 We calculated the probability of having received TFA using a multivariable logistic regression that accounted for the factors of stable housing as described above.37 We then estimated the outcome model using a mixed-effects logistic regression that controlled for covariates (ie, a doubly robust approach).

    Although these first 2 statistical approaches decreased the influence of measured confounders, the results could still be biased because of unmeasured confounding. For example, SSVF program grantees could preferentially select veterans for TFA who have more promising housing prospects or who are perceived as easier to house, a practice commonly referred to as creaming. We mitigated against bias from creaming in part by controlling for observable characteristics that might be viewed favorably by SSVF programs. However, some of the differences between veterans who did and did not receive TFA were not measured.

    Our third statistical approach used an instrumental variable, which can overcome bias from unmeasured confounding in an estimated effect. In this approach, the determination of who received and who did not receive TFA was at the discretion of the grantee, which means that veterans who enrolled in the SSVF program through grantees that allocated TFA more freely than others were more likely to receive TFA. We created 2 summary measures of a grantee’s TFA allocation and used them as instrumental variables: the mean amount of TFA per SSVF episode and the proportion of SSVF episodes in which any amount of TFA was received. We implemented the instrumental variable approach using the 2-stage residual inclusion method given that the outcome model was nonlinear.38 As an additional secondary analysis, we assessed the association between the dollar amount and type of TFA received and stable housing outcomes using a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression model.

    Each analysis was run for the overall cohort and then separately as additional secondary analyses for the subsets of veterans for whom the SSVF episode used the rapid rehousing component of the SSVF program (for veterans experiencing homelessness) and for those for whom the episode used the homelessness prevention component of the SSVF program (for veterans at risk for homelessness). The results of each analytic approach are represented as risk differences produced using marginal standardization in which the estimated probability of stable housing was calculated as a weighted mean across each covariate included in the model separately for each level of the exposure variable of interest.39 Because of the potential for type I error owing to multiple comparisons, the findings for analyses of secondary and subgroup analyses should be interpreted as exploratory. All statistical analyses were performed using Stata, version 15 (StataCorp LLC) using an a priori statistical significance of a 2-sided P = .05.

    Results

    Table 1 shows the summary statistics for the overall cohort (N = 41 969) and the subsets of veterans who received TFA during their SSVF episode (n = 29 184; 25 396 male [87.0%]; mean [SD] age, 50.4 [12.9] years) and those who did not receive TFA (n = 12 785; 11 229 male [87.8%]; mean [SD] age, 50.0 [13.3] years). The mean (SD) duration of SSVF program episodes was 90.5 (57.7) days. The eFigure in the Supplement shows the unweighted and weighted standardized differences between TFA and non-TFA recipients for each of the individual characteristics listed in Table 1 after the IPTW analysis. With the weights applied, the standardized difference was below 0.10 for each variable, indicating a high degree of balance.40

    The percentages of veterans who obtained stable housing by the amount of TFA received are shown in Table 2. Stable housing was obtained in 81.4% of the episodes. An association between the amount of TFA received and stable housing was found, with risk differences ranging from 0.168 (95% CI, 0.149-0.188) for those who received $0 to $2000 in TFA to 0.226 (95% CI, 0.203-0.249) for those who received more than $2000 to $4000 in TFA. More than 90% of veterans in both rapid rehousing and homelessness prevention components with TFA amounts of at least $2000 exited the program to stable housing. Stable housing rates were higher for veterans enrolled in homelessness prevention compared with rapid rehousing for both those who did not receive TFA (3160 [82.1%] vs 4103 [49.2%]) and those who received more than $0 to $2000 of TFA (2067 [94.0%] vs 3390 [77.7%]). A total of 69.5% of SSVF episodes involved the receipt of TFA, and the mean (SD) amount of TFA was $6070 ($7272).

    In multivariable regression analyses (Table 3; unadjusted results shown in eTable 2 in the Supplement), veterans who received any amount of TFA were significantly more likely to have a stable housing outcome compared with those who did not receive TFA (risk difference, 0.253; 95% CI, 0.240-0.265). This association was stronger for those enrolled in the rapid rehousing component (risk difference, 0.301; 95% CI, 0.288-0.315) compared with those in the homelessness prevention component (risk difference, 0.112; 95% CI, 0.097-0.127). The IPTW analysis yielded similar results, with a significant increase in the probability of stable housing for those who received TFA compared with those who did not. We also found an association between TFA and stable housing using the instrumental variable approach, with risk differences ranging from 0.077 (95% CI, 0.021-0.133) to 0.119 (95% CI, 0.070-0.169) for rapid rehousing and from 0.037 (95% CI, 0.005-0.069) to 0.042 (95% CI, 0.008-0.076) for homelessness prevention. The F statistic from the instrumental variable models ranged from 74.20 to 195.91, all of which are considerably higher than 10, the generally accepted threshold for the instrument to be sufficiently strong for use in an instrumental variable analysis.41

    When considering the association between the dollar amount of TFA and stable housing rates (multivariable results shown in Table 4; univariable results shown in eTable 3 in the Supplement), receipt of TFA from more than $0 to $2000 compared with no TFA among those in the rapid rehousing component was associated with a risk difference of 0.198 (95% CI, 0.171-0.225). However, the magnitude of the association was similar for TFAs of more than $2000 to $4000 (risk difference, 0.281; 95% CI, 0.250-0.311), more than $4000 to $6000 (risk difference, 0.269; 95% CI, 0.236-0.302), or more than $6000 (risk difference, 0.269; 95% CI, 0.235-0.304). For the homelessness prevention component, the size of the association of TFA amount with stable housing outcomes increased from 8.0% (95% CI, 5.4%-10.5%) for more than $0 to $2000 to 9.2% (95% CI, 6.1%-12.2%) for more than $6000.

    Discussion

    In this study, SSVF program enrollees who received TFA were significantly more likely to have stable housing after exit from the program than were those who did not receive TFA. The magnitude of the association of TFA with stable housing was largest for security deposit TFA among those in the rapid rehousing component and for rent TFA among those in the homelessness prevention component of the SSVF program. One possible explanation for this finding may be that veterans in the rapid rehousing and homelessness prevention components experienced different types of housing challenges. For example, the up-front fixed cost of a security deposit may be difficult to obtain for someone who is struggling financially and is currently homeless. On the other hand, obtaining money for a security deposit may not be the most daunting challenge for those who are currently housed but are at risk of becoming homeless. For these individuals, financial assistance to pay rent to maintain their housing may be more useful. The different types of TFA appear to target veterans with different housing assistance needs.

    It is important to place these results in the context of previous studies of nonveteran populations. Three quasi-experimental studies found that rapid rehousing was associated with a decrease in returns to an emergency shelter.42-44 The Family Options Study45,46 was a large randomized clinical trial of rapid rehousing compared with 3 alternatives: usual care, transitional housing, and permanent housing subsidy. At both 20 months45 and 37 months,46 housing outcomes for rapid rehousing were no different from outcomes for usual care or transitional housing but were worse than outcomes for permanent housing subsidy, a more robust form of intervention. A randomized clinical trial47 that focused on individuals with HIV infection or AIDS found that individuals in the rapid rehousing intervention group were more likely to be placed in stable housing than were those receiving usual care.

    We believe this innovative assessment of the association between TFA and stable housing is relevant to policy makers given the increasing emphasis in federal homeless policy over the past decade on rapid rehousing programs that, similar to the SSVF program, provide TFA.48,49 For example, between 2013 and 2019, the availability of rapid rehousing interventions increased by nearly 5-fold.50 Given the high cost of providing services to homeless individuals and the substantial adverse implications of homelessness for both physical and mental health, the primary goal of any rapid rehousing program is to facilitate stable housing. From this perspective, the results of this cohort study may support a continued and perhaps expanded policy shift toward offering this type of assistance to a larger number of households that are experiencing homelessness.

    The small number of high-quality research studies of rapid rehousing programs highlights the scarcity of research in this area, and studies focused on homelessness prevention are fewer still. One study of homelessness prevention analyzed calls between 2010 and 2012 to the Homelessness Prevention Call Center in Chicago from individuals at imminent risk of eviction requesting TFA that would allow them to remain in their home.51 The study found that receiving TFA was significantly associated with a decreased likelihood that a caller was admitted to a homeless shelter and with a decrease in the number of days spent in a shelter.51 The results of the present study are broadly consistent with these previous findings.

    Strengths and Limitations

    This study has strengths. First, the use of detailed HMIS and VA clinical data allowed the inclusion of a rich set of individual covariates in the statistical models. Although the TFA exposure was not randomly assigned in this study, these covariates allowed us to achieve a high level of conditional exchangeability between the SSVF program clients who received or did not receive TFA.52 Second, we found consistent results across the 3 different estimation approaches: multivariable regression, IPTW, and instrumental variable. Third, identifying a suitable control group can be difficult when studying an intervention retrospectively, but for this study, the control group was composed of veterans who also enrolled in the SSVF program; thus, they were facing similar housing instability problems as those who received TFA. In addition, the SSVF program entry date provided a natural and consistent index date for both the intervention and the control groups. Fourth, other studies on the association of housing interventions with stable housing outcomes have focused on limited geographic areas. However, the present study included veterans from 203 grantees across 49 US states and territories, making it one of the most geographically expansive studies conducted on this topic.

    This study also has limitations. First, because the study focused on the US veteran population, the results may not be generalizable to other groups of homeless individuals. Second, the stable housing outcome was measured at exit from the SSVF program, with episodes lasting a mean of 90.5 days. We were, therefore, able to draw conclusions only about the association between TFA and short-term housing stability. Third, although the HMIS is a rich source of data, the information contained in this database is self-reported by program clients. Fourth, even though the HMIS and VA electronic data allowed us to control for a number of important confounders in the association between TFA and stable housing, it was impossible to capture all of the factors that would influence a grantee’s decision to allocate TFA to a veteran. For this reason, the estimates from the multivariable regression and IPTW analyses may still be biased because of confounding by indication.

    Conclusions

    The findings of this cohort study suggest that receipt of TFA through the SSVF program may be associated with increased rates of stable housing among US veterans. These results may inform national policy debates regarding the optimal solutions to housing instability.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: December 19, 2020.

    Published: February 10, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.37047

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Nelson RE et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Richard E. Nelson, PhD, Informatics, Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences (IDEAS) Center, Veterans Affairs (VA) Salt Lake City Health Care System, 500 Foothill Blvd, Salt Lake City, UT 84148 (richard.nelson@utah.edu).

    Author Contributions: Dr Nelson had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Nelson, Byrne, Gundlapalli, Greene, Gelberg, Tsai, Montgomery.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Nelson, Byrne, Suo, Cook, Pettey, Greene, Kertesz, Tsai.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Nelson, Tsai.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Nelson, Byrne, Suo, Cook, Pettey, Gundlapalli, Greene, Gelberg, Kertesz, Montgomery.

    Statistical analysis: Nelson, Suo, Greene.

    Obtained funding: Nelson, Byrne.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Nelson, Byrne, Cook, Pettey, Tsai.

    Supervision: Nelson.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Nelson reported receiving grants from the VA Health Services Research and Development Service during the conduct of the study. Mr Cook reported receiving grants from the VA Health Services Research and Development Service during the conduct of the study. Mr Pettey reported receiving grants from the VA Health Services Research and Development Service during the conduct of the study. Dr Greene reported receiving grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, CSG-CSL, Invokana, and Vertex and personal fees from Durect and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Dr Kertesz reported being an employee of the VA; receiving income from UpToDate Inc; owning stock in health technology companies Thermo Fisher and Zimmer Biomet (not exceeding 5% of his assets); and previously holding stock in CVS Caremark. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant I50HX001240-01 from the IDEAS Center and by Merit Review Award I01HX002425-01A2 from the VA Health Services Research and Development Service (Dr Nelson).

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Disclaimer: The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Department of Veterans Affairs or the US government.

    Additional Information: Work for this study was supported with resources from and the use of facilities at the George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah.

    References
    1.
    Beijer  U, Wolf  A, Fazel  S.  Prevalence of tuberculosis, hepatitis C virus, and HIV in homeless people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Lancet Infect Dis. 2012;12(11):859-870. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70177-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Brown  RT, Kiely  DK, Bharel  M, Mitchell  SL.  Geriatric syndromes in older homeless adults.   J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):16-22. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1848-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Byrd  B. The emerging crisis of aged homelessness: what can be done to help? Health Affairs blog. February 27, 2020. Accessed July 1, 2020. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200226.712105/full/
    4.
    Kim  DH, Daskalakis  C, Plumb  JD,  et al.  Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors among individuals in low socioeconomic communities and homeless shelters.   Fam Community Health. 2008;31(4):269-280. doi:10.1097/01.FCH.0000336090.37280.2e PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Lee  TC, Hanlon  JG, Ben-David  J,  et al.  Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in homeless adults.   Circulation. 2005;111(20):2629-2635. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.104.510826 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Fazel  S, Khosla  V, Doll  H, Geddes  J.  The prevalence of mental disorders among the homeless in western countries: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.   PLoS Med. 2008;5(12):e225. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050225 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    7.
    Topolovec-Vranic  J, Ennis  N, Colantonio  A,  et al.  Traumatic brain injury among people who are homeless: a systematic review.   BMC Public Health. 2012;12:1059. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1059 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Torchalla  I, Strehlau  V, Li  K, Krausz  M.  Substance use and predictors of substance dependence in homeless women.   Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;118(2-3):173-179. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2011.03.016 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Deloitte Centre for Health Solutions. Healthcare for the homeless: homelessness is bad for your health. June 2012. Accessed July 1, 2020. https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/life-sciences-and-healthcare/articles/healthcare-for-the-homeless.html
    10.
    Fazel  S, Geddes  JR, Kushel  M.  The health of homeless people in high-income countries: descriptive epidemiology, health consequences, and clinical and policy recommendations.   Lancet. 2014;384(9953):1529-1540. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61132-6 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Hibbs  JR, Benner  L, Klugman  L,  et al.  Mortality in a cohort of homeless adults in Philadelphia.   N Engl J Med. 1994;331(5):304-309. doi:10.1056/NEJM199408043310506 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Morrison  DS.  Homelessness as an independent risk factor for mortality: results from a retrospective cohort study.   Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(3):877-883. doi:10.1093/ije/dyp160 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Hwang  SW.  Mortality among men using homeless shelters in Toronto, Ontario.   JAMA. 2000;283(16):2152-2157. doi:10.1001/jama.283.16.2152 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Policy and Global Affairs; Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Committee on an Evaluation of Permanent Supportive Housing Programs for Homeless Individuals.  Permanent Supportive Housing:  Evaluating the Evidence for Improving Health Outcomes Among People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness. National Academies Press; 2018.
    15.
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis  D, Ganann  R, Krishnaratne  S, Ciliska  D, Kouyoumdjian  F, Hwang  SW.  Effectiveness of interventions to improve the health and housing status of homeless people: a rapid systematic review.   BMC Public Health. 2011;11:638. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-638 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Brown  RT, Miao  Y, Mitchell  SL,  et al.  Health outcomes of obtaining housing among older homeless adults.   Am J Public Health. 2015;105(7):1482-1488. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302539 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Wolitski  RJ, Kidder  DP, Pals  SL,  et al; Housing and Health Study Team.  Randomized trial of the effects of housing assistance on the health and risk behaviors of homeless and unstably housed people living with HIV.   AIDS Behav. 2010;14(3):493-503. doi:10.1007/s10461-009-9643-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    O’Campo  P, Stergiopoulos  V, Nir  P,  et al.  How did a Housing First intervention improve health and social outcomes among homeless adults with mental illness in Toronto? two-year outcomes from a randomised trial.   BMJ Open. 2016;6(9):e010581. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010581 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    19.
    Hanratty  M.  Do local economic conditions affect homelessness? impact of area housing market factors, unemployment, and poverty on community homeless rates.   Housing Policy Debate. 2017;27(4):640-655. doi:10.1080/10511482.2017.1282885 Google ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Caton  CL, Hasin  D, Shrout  PE,  et al.  Risk factors for homelessness among indigent urban adults with no history of psychotic illness: a case-control study.   Am J Public Health. 2000;90(2):258-263. doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.2.258 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Shelton  KH, Taylor  PJ, Bonner  A, van den Bree  M.  Risk factors for homelessness: evidence from a population-based study.   Psychiatr Serv. 2009;60(4):465-472. doi:10.1176/ps.2009.60.4.465 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Washington  DL, Yano  EM, McGuire  J, Hines  V, Lee  M, Gelberg  L.  Risk factors for homelessness among women veterans.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(1):82-91. doi:10.1353/hpu.0.0237 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Folsom  DP, Hawthorne  W, Lindamer  L,  et al.  Prevalence and risk factors for homelessness and utilization of mental health services among 10,340 patients with serious mental illness in a large public mental health system.   Am J Psychiatry. 2005;162(2):370-376. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.2.370 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Edens  EL, Kasprow  W, Tsai  J, Rosenheck  RA.  Association of substance use and VA service–connected disability benefits with risk of homelessness among veterans.   Am J Addict. 2011;20(5):412-419. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2011.00166.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Odell  SM, Commander  MJ.  Risk factors for homelessness among people with psychotic disorders.   Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2000;35(9):396-401. doi:10.1007/s001270050256 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Vandenbroucke  JP, von Elm  E, Altman  DG,  et al; STROBE Initiative.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration.   Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(8):W163-W194. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    27.
    US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homeless Management Information System. Accessed June 23, 2020. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/hmis
    28.
    Byrne  T, Treglia  D, Culhane  D, Kuhn  J, Kane  V.  Predictors of homelessness among families and single adults after exit from homelessness prevention and rapid re-housing programs: evidence from the Department of Veterans Affairs Supportive Services for Veteran Families program.   Housing Policy Debate. 2015;26(1):252-275. doi:10.1080/10511482.2015.1060249 Google ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Caton  CL, Dominguez  B, Schanzer  B,  et al.  Risk factors for long-term homelessness: findings from a longitudinal study of first-time homeless single adults.   Am J Public Health. 2005;95(10):1753-1759. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.063321 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Tsai  J, Hoff  RA, Harpaz-Rotem  I.  One-year incidence and predictors of homelessness among 300,000 U.S. veterans seen in specialty mental health care.   Psychol Serv. 2017;14(2):203-207. doi:10.1037/ser0000083 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Charlson  ME, Pompei  P, Ales  KL, MacKenzie  CR.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.   J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Jencks  SF, Schuster  A, Dougherty  GB, Gerovich  S, Brock  JE, Kind  AJH.  Safety-net hospitals, neighborhood disadvantage, and readmissions under Maryland’s all-payer program: an observational study.   Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(2):91-98. doi:10.7326/M16-2671 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Kind  AJ, Jencks  S, Brock  J,  et al.  Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and 30-day rehospitalization: a retrospective cohort study.   Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(11):765-774. doi:10.7326/M13-2946 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Austin  PC.  An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies.   Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399-424. doi:10.1080/00273171.2011.568786 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Hernán  MA, Brumback  B, Robins  JM.  Marginal structural models to estimate the causal effect of zidovudine on the survival of HIV-positive men.   Epidemiology. 2000;11(5):561-570. doi:10.1097/00001648-200009000-00012 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Hernán  MA, Brumback  BA, Robins  JM.  Estimating the causal effect of zidovudine on CD4 count with a marginal structural model for repeated measures.   Stat Med. 2002;21(12):1689-1709. doi:10.1002/sim.1144 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Austin  PC, Grootendorst  P, Anderson  GM.  A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: a Monte Carlo study.   Stat Med. 2007;26(4):734-753. doi:10.1002/sim.2580 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    38.
    Terza  JV.  Two-stage residual inclusion estimation in health services research and health economics.   Health Serv Res. 2018;53(3):1890-1899. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12714 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Muller  CJ, MacLehose  RF.  Estimating predicted probabilities from logistic regression: different methods correspond to different target populations.   Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(3):962-970. doi:10.1093/ije/dyu029 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    40.
    Austin  PC, Stuart  EA.  Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies.   Stat Med. 2015;34(28):3661-3679. doi:10.1002/sim.6607 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    41.
    Staiger  D, Stock  J.  Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments.   Econometrica. 1997;65:557-586. doi:10.2307/2171753 Google ScholarCrossref
    42.
    Taylor  J. Housing Assistance for Households Experiencing Homelessness. Dissertation. The New School; 2014.
    43.
    Rodriguez  JM, Eidelman  TA.  Homelessness interventions in Georgia: rapid re-housing, transitional housing, and the likelihood of returning to shelter.   Housing Policy Debate. 2017;27(6):825-842. doi:10.1080/10511482.2017.1313292 Google ScholarCrossref
    44.
    Shah  MF, Liu  Q, Patton  D, Felver  B. Impact of housing assistance on outcomes for homeless families: an evaluation of the Ending Family Homelessness Pilot. August 2015. Accessed July 15, 2020. https://www.dshs.wa.gov/sites/default/files/rda/reports/research-11-219.pdf
    45.
    Gubits  D, Shinn  B, Bell  S,  et al.  Family Options Study: Short-term Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2015.
    46.
    Gubits  D, Shinn  M, Wood  M,  et al.  Family Options Study: 3-Year Impacts of Housing and Services Interventions for Homeless Families. US Department of Housing and Urban Development; 2016.
    47.
    Towe  VL, Wiewel  EW, Zhong  Y, Linnemayr  S, Johnson  R, Rojas  J.  A randomized controlled trial of a rapid re-housing intervention for homeless persons living with HIV/AIDS: impact on housing and HIV medical outcomes.   AIDS Behav. 2019;23(9):2315-2325. doi:10.1007/s10461-019-02461-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    48.
    Berg  S.  The HEARTH Act.   Cityscape. 2013;15(1):317-323.Google Scholar
    49.
    Culhane  D, Metraux  S, Byrne  T.  A prevention-centered approach to homelessness assistance: a paradigm shift?   Housing Policy Debate. 2011;21(2):295-315. doi:10.1080/10511482.2010.536246 Google ScholarCrossref
    50.
    US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress, part 1: point-in-time estimates of homelessness. January 2020. Accessed November 15, 2020. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/2019-AHAR-Part-1.pdf
    51.
    Evans  WN, Sullivan  JX, Wallskog  M.  The impact of homelessness prevention programs on homelessness.   Science. 2016;353(6300):694-699. doi:10.1126/science.aag0833 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    52.
    Hernán  MA, Robins  JM.  Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data.   J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(7):578-586. doi:10.1136/jech.2004.029496 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×