While permanent and transitional supportive housing programs in Minnesota are providing shelter to the homeless and helping them become more self-sufficient, better assessments and referrals would help improve both models, a report from Wilder Research, the research arm of the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, finds.

Based on interviews with nearly six hundred supportive housing program participants over a two-year period, the report, Supportive Housing Outcomes in Minnesota (153 pages, PDF), found that the intended beneficiaries of each type of housing were well served. Time-limited transitional housing models, which usually include employment support, generally benefited those with fewer barriers to self-sufficiency and employment, including a larger percentage of couples with children and those under age 24. In contrast, permanent supportive housing models served those facing greater challenges, including a larger percentage of men and older adults, those experiencing chronic homelessness, and those with physical disabilities or long-term illnesses.

By the end of the two-year period, 96 percent of the transitional and 55 percent of the permanent housing residents had exited their respective programs, with 82 percent and 74 percent of those moving into a form of housing considered permanent. And while nearly half of those who exited programs experienced a new episode of homelessness, by the end of the study 70 percent of all participants in transitional programs and 74 percent of all participants in permanent supportive housing programs said they had enough income to pay for housing and food, with Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development records showing that 35 percent of transitional and 18 percent of permanent residents were employed.

"Recent funding for new supportive housing has gone almost entirely toward permanent supportive housing," said Ellen Shelton, the study's co-director. "However, given the different characteristics and circumstances of people experiencing homelessness, both types of programs are needed for a balanced continuum to help people gain stable housing.”

Shelton noted that there is room for improvement in both types of housing. "One suggestion might be to develop a more consistent and coordinated assessment of those seeking supportive housing, to help steer them toward the kind of program most likely to fit their needs," she said. "This could include information related to health, housing, and homelessness history, as well as financial supports currently available to the potential resident. Such an assessment would be of no use, though, unless we had a full continuum of program types to which assessed individuals could be referred."