Table 5.

Health and Social Outcomes by Intervention Assignment Among Mutually Exclusive Client Subgroups Below the Federal Poverty Line (Model 2)

Involved in the Justice System (n = 158)Homeless, Not Involved in the Justice System (n = 298)Other Poor (n = 294)
RSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ESRSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ESRSCEPCEP vs. RS, Test (95% CI)ES
Poor MHQOL (%)OROROR
    6-Month follow-up50.1 (5.3)38.0 (5.7)0.6 (0.3–1.2)0.2455.6 (5.8)49.4 (4.8)0.8 (0.4–1.5)0.1247.9 (4.4)47.6 (3.7)1.0 (0.6–1.5)0.00
    12-Month follow-up50.6 (8.0)40.9 (7.9)0.7 (0.3–1.8)0.1955.3 (4.4)48.1 (4.6)0.7 (0.5–1.2)0.1450.2 (4.8)45.8 (5.4)0.8 (0.5–1.4)0.09
PHQ-9 standard score (mean)DifferenceDifferenceDifference
    6-Month follow-up13.0 (1.0)13.0 (0.9)0.0 (−2.9 to 2.9)0.0013.7 (0.6)12.8 (0.7)−0.9 (−2.7 to 1.0)0.1312.5 (0.8)12.5 (0.7)0.0 (−2.5 to 2.4)0.00
    12-Month follow-up11.8 (0.9)11.5 (1.2)−0.3 (−2.6 to 2.1)0.0412.7 (0.6)12.1 (0.6)−0.6 (−2.2 to 1.0)0.0912.5 (0.8)12.6 (0.6)0.0 (−1.9 to 1.9)0.00
Mental wellness (%)OROROR
    6-Month follow-up31.0 (6.4)50.8 (6.7)2.5 (0.9–6.9)0.4133.4 (4.7)40.3 (4.2)1.4 (0.7–2.7)0.1429.6 (4.1)45.7 (4.3)2.1 (1.2–3.7)*0.33
    12-Month follow-up51.8 (8.3)58.4 (6.8)1.3 (0.4–4.1)0.1340.1 (5.0)48.9 (6.1)1.5 (0.7–3.0)0.1846.1 (5.5)43.0 (4.5)0.9 (0.5–1.6)0.06
Good physical health (%)
    6-Month follow-up74.2 (5.5)79.8 (5.5)1.4 (0.6–3.5)0.1373.5 (3.1)74.0 (4.8)1.0 (0.6–1.8)0.0172.9 (4.4)76.8 (3.9)1.2 (0.6–2.4)0.09
    12-Month follow-up73.9 (5.4)81.8 (7.1)1.6 (0.5–4.9)0.1966.5 (4.0)78.3 (4.0)1.9 (1–3.4)*0.2770.9 (5.3)77.0 (3.6)1.4 (0.8–2.5)0.14
Homeless/risk (%)
    6-Month follow-up41.9 (7.3)20.6 (6.4)0.4 (0.1–0.9)0.4655.1 (4.5)46.1 (5.9)0.7 (0.4–1.3)0.1824.5 (4.6)17.9 (3.3)0.7 (0.4–1.3)0.16
    12-Month follow-up32.2 (8.6)36.7 (6.6)1.2 (0.5–2.8)0.1045.2 (4.7)48.0 (4.9)1.1 (0.7–1.9)0.0623.1 (5.1)21.7 (4.6)0.9 (0.4–2.1)0.03
Worried about cost (%)
    6-Month follow-up34.9 (6.5)32.9 (5.4)0.9 (0.4–1.9)0.0435.7 (4.4)30.7 (4.2)0.8 (0.5–1.4)0.1129.0 (4.6)27.5 (4.1)0.9 (0.6–1.6)0.03
    12-Month follow-up30.8 (5.6)26.4 (7.7)0.8 (0.3–2.0)0.1037.3 (4.3)23.3 (4.9)0.5 (0.2–1.0)0.3128.3 (4.8)23.7 (3.7)0.8 (0.4–1.4)0.11
Life difficulties total score out of 15 (mean)DifferenceDifferenceDifference
    6-Month follow-up2.9 (0.4)1.9 (0.3)−1.1 (−1.9 to −0.2)0.443.3 (0.3)3.3 (0.3)0.0 (−0.8 to 0.7)0.012.6 (0.3)2.6 (0.2)−0.1 (−0.7 to 0.5)0.03
    12-Month follow-up2.5 (0.4)2.6 (0.3)0.1 (−1.3 to 1.5)0.043.0 (0.2)2.7 (0.3)−0.2 (−0.9 to 0.4)0.102.7 (0.3)2.5 (0.3)−0.2 (−1.0 to 0.6)0.12
  • Data are estimate (standard error) unless otherwise indicated.

  • Intervention–by–vulnerable subgroups interaction models used multiple imputed data weighted for eligible sample for enrollment and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. A linear regression model was used for a continuous variable (presented as between-group difference) or a logistic regression model for a binary variable (presented as odds ratio [OR]); adjusted for baseline status of the dependent variable, age, education, race/ethnicity, 12-month depressive disorder, and community; and accounted for the design effect of the cluster randomization. No significant interactions of intervention by poverty status were found for any outcome variables.

  • * *P < .01.

  • P < .05.

  • CEP, Community Engagement and Planning; CI, confidence interval; ES, standardized effect size; MHQOL, mental health quality of life; RS, Resources for Services.