BackgroundIndividuals with mental illnesses are overrepresented among the homeless. Housing First (HF) has been shown to promote positive outcomes in this population. However, key questions remain unresolved, including: how to match support services to client needs, the benefits of housing in scattered sites versus single congregate building, and the effectiveness of HF with individuals actively using substances. The present study aimed to recruit two samples of homeless mentally ill participants who differed in the complexity of their needs. Study details, including recruitment, randomization, and follow-up, are presented.MethodsEligibility was based on homeless status and current mental disorder. Participants were classified as either moderate needs (MN) or high needs (HN). Those with MN were randomized to HF with Intensive Case Management (HF-ICM) or usual care. Those with HN were randomized to HF with Assertive Community Treatment (HF-ACT), congregate housing with support, or usual care. Participants were interviewed every 3 months for 2 years. Separate consent was sought to access administrative data.ResultsParticipants met eligibility for either MN (n = 200) or HN (n = 297) and were randomized accordingly. Both samples were primarily male and white. Compared to participants designated MN, HN participants had higher rates of hospitalization for psychiatric reasons prior to randomization, were younger at the time of recruitment, younger when first homeless, more likely to meet criteria for substance dependence, and less likely to have completed high school. Across all study arms, between 92% and 100% of participants were followed over 24 months post-randomization. Minimal significant differences were found between study arms following randomization. 438 participants (88%) provided consent to access administrative data.ConclusionThe study successfully recruited participants meeting criteria for homelessness and current mental disorder. Both MN and HN groups had high rates of substance dependence, suicidality, and physical illness. Randomization resulted in no meaningful detectable differences between study arms.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN57595077 (Vancouver at Home study: Housing First plus Assertive Community Treatment versus congregate housing plus supports versus treatment as usual) and ISRCTN66721740 (Vancouver At Home study: Housing First plus Intensive Case Management versus treatment as usual).

Abundant research confirms a high prevalence of substance use and mental disorders in correctional samples. It is unclear, however, how these contribute to the risk of repeat offending. The present study examined offense trajectories within a Canadian Provincial offender population (N = 31,014), and observed that offenders with non–substance-related mental disorders were at no greater risk of recidivism than those with no diagnosis. In contrast, odds of recidivism were significantly higher among those with substance use and/or co-occurring disorders. These findings add strength to the emerging conclusion that non–substance-related mental disorders are, as a group, less likely to predict recidivism than substance use disorders. Notably, nearly 50% of repeat offenders had a physician-diagnosed substance use disorder in the 5 years prior to their index offense. Results are discussed in relation to the necessity for targeted evidence-based partnerships between health and corrections sectors that are responsive to both public health and safety.

Our findings provide important context to the emerging body of quantitative research on Housing First and recovery from homelessness. Participants' experiences of recovery, particularly as it relates to housing and supports, shifts in identity, and meaningful activity must be acknowledged and incorporated into the design and evaluation of public services, and policy and service reforms. (PsycINFO Database Record

ObjectiveNo previous experimental trials have investigated Housing First (HF) in both scattered site (SHF) and congregate (CHF) formats. We hypothesized that CHF and SHF would be associated with a greater percentage of time stably housed as well as superior health and psychosocial outcomes over 24 months compared to treatment as usual (TAU).MethodsInclusion criteria were homelessness, mental illness, and high need for support. Participants were randomised to SHF, CHF, or TAU. SHF consisted of market rental apartments with support provided by Assertive Community Treatment (ACT). CHF consisted of a single building with supports equivalent to ACT. TAU included existing services and supports.ResultsOf 800 people screened, 297 were randomly assigned to CHF (107), SHF (90), or TAU (100). The percentage of time in stable housing over 24 months was 26.3% in TAU (reference; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 20.5, 32.0), compared to 74.3% in CHF (95% CI = 69.3, 79.3, p<0.001) and 74.5% in SHF (95% CI = 69.2, 79.7, p<0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured CHF but not SHF compared to TAU.ConclusionHF in scattered and congregate formats is capable of achieving housing stability among people experiencing major mental illness and chronic homelessness. Only CHF was associated with improvement on select secondary outcomes.RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials: ISRCTN57595077.

Preliminary evidence suggests that adherence to antipsychotic medication reduces criminal recidivism among patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, existing studies operationalize antipsychotic adherence as a binary variable (usually using a threshold of ≥80%), which does not reflect the prevalence of suboptimal adherence in real-world settings. The purpose of the current analysis was to investigate the association between successive ordinal levels of antipsychotic adherence and criminal recidivism in a well-defined sample of offenders diagnosed with schizophrenia (n = 11462). Adherence was measured using the medication possession ratio (MPR) and analyzed as a time-dependent covariate in multivariable regression models. Data were drawn from linked, comprehensive diagnostic, pharmacy and justice system records, and individuals were followed for an average of 10 years. Adjusted rate ratios (ARR) and confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Overall mean MPR was 0.41. Increasing levels of antipsychotic adherence were not associated with progressively lower rates of offending. However, when compared to the reference group (MPR ≥ 80%) all lower adherence levels were significantly associated (P < .001) with increased risk of violent (ARR = 1.58; 95% CI = 1.46–1.71) and nonviolent (ARR = 1.41; 95% CI = 1.33–1.50) offenses. Significance was replicated in separate sensitivity analyses. Previously published studies reporting reductions in crime may have been influenced by antipsychotic adherence ≥80%. Binary operationalization of adherence is an inaccurate predictor of recidivism. Future research addressing functional outcomes of antipsychotic adherence should conceptualize adherence as an incremental independent variable.