ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We compared Home to Stay, a pilot of intensive housing placement and community transition services for episodic and recidivist homeless families, with a standard services approach. METHODS: Using intention-to-treat analyses, we conducted a modified randomized trial of 138 Home to Stay client families and a control group of 192 client families receiving standard shelter services. RESULTS: Home to Stay clients exited shelter more quickly than clients in the control group (Cox regression, P < .001), more commonly exited shelter with housing subsidies (75% vs 56%), stayed out of shelter longer (Cox regression, P = .011), and spent fewer total days in shelter (376 days vs 449 days). Home to Stay performed best with clients who entered shelter within 180 days of the pilot's start date and had less impact on clients entering shelter before that time. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to standard services, Home to Stay services can accelerate exit from shelter and reduce return to shelter and total sheltered days for episodic and recidivist homeless families. Standard shelter services may be able to narrow this performance gap by incentivizing work with all episodic and recidivist homeless families.
