IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/chosxx/v41y2026i4p741-761.html

Residents’ perception of the quality and impact of different models of permanent supportive housing

Author

Listed:
  • Marie-Josée Fleury
  • Guy Grenier
  • Armelle Imboua
  • Xiangfei Meng

Abstract

This study explored the similarities and differences that residents perceived regarding the quality of the permanent supportive housing (PSH) model they lived in, housing features and support, other services received, residential stability, community integration, and quality of life. Based on a previous study (T1, N = 308), 60 Quebec (Canada) PSH residents were randomly recruited in 2023 (T2) for this mixed-methods study. Compared to other models, scattered-site PSH housed more women and younger residents with better perceived mental/physical health conditions, and at T2 more improved social conditions; community PSH offered more continuous support and a safer environment, while social PSH (a hybrid of the other two) included residents with more long-term residential stability. Scattered-site and social PSH may be more appropriate for individuals with greater autonomy, and community PSH for those with continuous needs. For the former, a safe living environment and access to the job market or to community involvement may be prioritized, while the latter may benefit from greater autonomy.

Suggested Citation

  • Marie-Josée Fleury & Guy Grenier & Armelle Imboua & Xiangfei Meng, 2026. "Residents’ perception of the quality and impact of different models of permanent supportive housing," Housing Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(4), pages 741-761, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:41:y:2026:i:4:p:741-761
    DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2025.2498379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/02673037.2025.2498379
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/02673037.2025.2498379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:chosxx:v:41:y:2026:i:4:p:741-761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/chos20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.