Keeping the “Permanent” In Permanent Supportive Housing: Promising Practices for Eviction Prevention In Psh

• Background and Purpose: Since the emergence of Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) as a best practice for housing people who experience mental illness, substance use disorder, and chronic homelessness, Oregon has invested heavily in this model. The Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) dashboard lists 1957 PSH units across 70 projects, 82% of which are located in the Portland Metro tri-county region. A recent report demonstrated concerningly high levels of evictions from subsidized rental housing in Oregon (Wang et al., 2024), including from PSH. This finding raised concerns about how ‘permanent’ PSH actually is for the vulnerable population it is designed to serve. In response, this two-fold study first conducted a systematic review to distill PSH policy design features that help prevent and mitigate eviction. Then, we conducted a preliminary assessment of Oregon’s adoption of eviction prevention practices in PSH. Results are being used to enhance eviction prevention within Oregon’s PSH.
• Methods: To identify promising practices in the prevention or mitigation of eviction from PSH, researchers conducted a systematic review of peer reviewed academic articles as well as published technical reports (N:19) related to Housing First and/or PSH and eviction, with a focus on US models and studies. From these, we distilled eight areas of practice that have been correlated to eviction prevention or mitigation from PSH. In order to assess Oregon’s adoption of these promising practices, researchers then analyzed two policy documents that inform the design and implementation of PSH programs in the state and set the baseline expectations for PSH developers: Oregon PSH Standards and Best Practices (Oregon Housing and Community Services, 2025) and Portland Metro’s draft Supportive Housing Services Administration Rules for PSH (Metro, 2025).
• Results: From the review of the literature, we identify eight promising practices to mitigate or prevent eviction from PSH: (1) a commitment to rehouse residents in event of eviction; (2) the continuation of services in the event of housing loss; (3) regular, consistent contact with participants; (4) the availability of a robust array of clinical services; (5) the availability of housing support services; (6) housing choice; (7) access to integrated housing; and (8) separation of housing and services. Our analysis of two policy documents that inform Oregon’s PSH implementation in Oregon concludes that although both the state and Portland Metro explicitly state a commitment to preventing eviction, many of the promising practices to prevent/mitigate eviction in PSH are absent or incomplete in these guidelines.
• Conclusions and Implications: Findings provide a clear framework for eviction prevention and mitigation practices in PSH. PSH funders should be encouraged to integrate guidance related to design features that have been positively associated with eviction mitigation and prevention. Social welfare advocates can use this framework to advocate for housing stability for vulnerable residents. Researchers have provided Oregon PSH funders with a tailored set of recommendations to enhance eviction prevention and mitigation for PSH. Results are being used to enhance eviction prevention within Oregon’s PSH.