Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 53, Issue 6, pp 672–678 | Cite as

Integrating the Integrated: Merging Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment (IDDT) with Housing First

Brief Report


This study reports on a housing program that merged two evidence-based practices frequently applied in tandem: Integrated Dual Diagnosis Treatment and Housing First. Quantitative measures show that consumers in the program were receptive to supportive housing and core services. These quantitative measures, when considered alongside qualitative interviews, suggest that in order for more consumers to move through the IDDT stages of educational and vocational advancement, the staff will need to emphasize the permanence of supportive housing. Thus, the study also demonstrates the importance of integrating results of qualitative evaluations with quantitative data to strengthen a program’s evidence base.


Homeless Housing first Integrated dual disorder treatment Assertive community treatment Evidence-based practice 



The authors would like to thank the team at Mercy Behavioral Health’s New Lease on Life Program, including: Meghan Huerbin, LPC, Amy Beadling, MSW, Shannon Brogdon, Victoria Norkevicus, and Robert Jumba, MA.


This evaluation was funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (Grant Number SM059154).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article includes an evaluation involving human subjects (interviewees) but was approved as exempt from further review by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board. Informed, verbal consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the evaluation.


  1. Cartwright, N., & Munro, E. (2010). The limitations of randomized controlled trials in predicting effectiveness. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(2), 260–266. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01382.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center. (2003). IDDT fidelity scale.Google Scholar
  3. Drake, R. E., Goldman, H. H., Leff, H. S., Lehman, A. F., Dixon, L., Mueser, K. T., & Torrey, W. C. (2001). Implementing evidence-based practices in routine mental health service settings. Psychiatric services (Washington, D. C.), 52(2), 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. HUD. (2007). Defining chronic homelessness: A technical guide for HUD programs.Google Scholar
  5. Johnson, T. P., Freels, S. A., Parsons, J. A., & Vangeest, J. B. (1997). Substance abuse and homelessness: social selection or social adaptation? Addiction (Abingdon, England), 92(4), 437–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Mancini, A. D, Moser, L. L., Whitley, R., McHugo, G. J., Bond, G. R, Finnerty, M. T, & Burns, B. J. (2015). Assertive community treatment: Facilitators and barriers to implementation in routine mental health settings. Psychiatric Services.Google Scholar
  7. Matejkowski, J., & Draine, J. (2009). Investigating the impact of housing first on ACT fidelity. Community Mental Health Journal, 45(1), 6–11. doi: 10.1007/s10597-008-9152-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. McHugo, G. J., Drake, R. E., Whitley, R., Bond, G. R., Campbell, K., Rapp, C. A., … Finnerty, & M, T. (2007). Fidelity outcomes in the National Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Project. Psychiatric services (Washington, D. C.), 58(10), 1279–1284. doi: 10.1176/ Scholar
  9. Neumiller, S., Bennett-Clark, F., Young, M. S., Dates, B., Broner, N., Leddy, J., … De Jong, F. (2009). Implementing assertive community treatment in diverse settings for people who are homeless with co-occurring mental and addictive disorders: A series of case studies. Journal of Dual Diagnosis, 5(3–4), 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. SAMHSA. (2002). Evidence-based practices for co-occurring disorders—understanding evidence-based practices. In Report to Congress on the Prevention and Treatment of Co-occurring Substance Abuse Disorders and Mental Disorders.Google Scholar
  11. Shank, G.. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach. New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Stirman, S. W., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7(1), 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 Tools. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from
  14. Torrey, W. C., Bond, G. R., McHugo, G. J., & Swain, K. (2012). Evidence-based practice implementation in community mental health settings: The relative importance of key domains of implementation activity. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39(5), 353–364.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tsemberis, S., & Asmussen, S. (1999). From Streets to Homes. Alcoholism Treatment Quarterly, 17(1–2), 113–131. doi: 10.1300/J020v17n01_07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004). Housing First, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with a dual diagnosis. American Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 651–656.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Wadsworth, Y. (2011). Building in research and evaluation: Human inquiry for living systems. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  18. Watson, D. P., Orwat, J., Wagner, D. E., Shuman, V., & Tolliver, R. (2013). The housing first model (HFM) fidelity index: Designing and testing a tool for measuring integrity of housing programs that serve active substance users. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 8, 16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Program Evaluation and Research UnitUniversity of Pittsburgh School of PharmacyPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations