Skip nav
 
  •  

Intervention Summary

Critical Time Intervention

Critical Time Intervention (CTI) is a time-limited case management model that is designed to support continuity of care and community integration for persons with severe mental illness who are transitioning from institutional settings (e.g., shelters, hospitals, jails) to community care and are at risk of homelessness. The intervention, which lasts roughly 9 months following institutional discharge, involves two components: (1) strengthening the individual's long-term ties to services, family, and friends and (2) providing emotional and practical support during the transition. Delivered by workers who have established relationships with clients before the transition, the intervention includes three main phases: (1) transition to the community, which focuses on providing intensive support and assessing the resources that exist for the transition of care to community providers; (2) tryout, which involves testing and adjusting the systems of support that were developed in the first phase; and (3) transfer of care, which completes the transfer of care to community resources that will provide long-term support.

The study included in the first review conducted by NREPP involved males with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders who were discharged from a homeless shelter. The study included in the second review involved previously homeless men and women with severe mental illness who had been transitioned from inpatient psychiatric hospitalization to residences on hospital grounds and were being discharged to the community.

Descriptive Information

Areas of Interest Mental health treatment
Co-occurring disorders
Outcomes Review Date: December 2013
1: Period prevalence of homelessness
2: Number of nights spent homeless
3: Period prevalence of psychiatric rehospitalization
4: Number of nights spent in psychiatric rehospitalization
5: Quality of family relationships

Review Date: August 2006
1: Homeless nights and extended homelessness
2: Negative symptoms of psychopathology
3: Number of homeless nights as a function of cost
Outcome Categories Cost
Family/relationships
Homelessness
Mental health
Social functioning
Ages 18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
55+ (Older adult)
Genders Male
Female
Races/Ethnicities Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
White
Race/ethnicity unspecified
Settings Other community settings
Geographic Locations Urban
Implementation History CTI was first implemented in 1991. Since then, more than 500 individuals at 130 sites in 30 States have participated in the intervention. In addition, the intervention has been used in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
NIH Funding/CER Studies Partially/fully funded by National Institutes of Health: Yes
Evaluated in comparative effectiveness research studies: No
Adaptations CTI has been adapted for use with homeless families (including a parent with mental illness) in transition from institutional to community living.
Adverse Effects No adverse effects, concerns, or unintended consequences were identified by the developer.
IOM Prevention Categories IOM prevention categories are not applicable.

Quality of Research
Review Date: December 2013

Documents Reviewed

The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.

Study 1

Herman, D. B., Conover, S., Gorroochurn, P., Hinterland, K., Hoepner, L., & Susser, E. S. (2011). Randomized trial of Critical Time Intervention to prevent homelessness after hospital discharge. Psychiatric Services, 62(7), 713-719.  Pub Med icon

Tomita, A., & Herman, D. B. (2012). The impact of Critical Time Intervention in reducing psychiatric rehospitalization after hospital discharge. Psychiatric Services, 63(9), 935-937.  Pub Med icon

Tomita, A., Lukens, E. P., & Herman, D. B. (2014). Mediation analysis of critical time intervention for persons living with serious mental illnesses: Assessing the role of family relations in reducing psychiatric rehospitalization. Psychiatric rehabilitation journal, 37(1), 4.

 

Outcomes

Outcome 1: Period prevalence of homelessness
Description of Measures Period prevalence of homelessness was defined as a dichotomous measure of homelessness (i.e., ever homeless or never homeless) during the last three follow-up intervals (last 18 weeks) of the study. After participants' discharge from the transitional residence, trained interviewers blind to group assignments conducted face-to-face interviews with participants every 6 weeks for 18 months to document where participants had spent each night during the respective follow-up period. When participants could not be interviewed, residential data were collected from individuals close to the participants (e.g., caseworkers, family members).
Key Findings Previously homeless men and women with severe mental illness who were discharged from inpatient psychiatric hospitalization to transitional residences on hospital grounds were randomly assigned to receive CTI plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care only (comparison group) at the point of discharge from transitional residences to the community. Among participants with complete follow-up data, the percentage of participants experiencing any homelessness during the last three follow-up intervals was lower in the intervention group than comparison group (5% vs. 19%; p = .032), after adjustment for baseline homelessness (number of homeless nights during the 3-month period before the hospitalization).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 3.0 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 2: Number of nights spent homeless
Description of Measures Number of nights spent homeless was assessed using residential data collected from participants after discharge from transitional residence. Following discharge, trained interviewers blind to group assignments conducted face-to-face interviews with participants every 6 weeks for 18 months to document where participants had spent each night during the respective follow-up period. When participants could not be interviewed, residential data were collected from individuals close to the participants (e.g., caseworkers, family members).
Key Findings Previously homeless men and women with severe mental illness who were discharged from inpatient psychiatric hospitalization to transitional residences on hospital grounds were randomly assigned to receive CTI plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care only (comparison group) at the point of discharge from transitional residences to the community. After adjustment for baseline homelessness (number of homeless nights during the 3-month period before the hospitalization), findings included the following:

  • The total number of homeless nights during the last three follow-up intervals was lower for the intervention than comparison group (6 vs. 20; p < .001).
  • The total number of homeless nights during the 18-month follow-up period was lower for the intervention than comparison group (1,812 vs. 2,403; p < .001).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.8 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 3: Period prevalence of psychiatric rehospitalization
Description of Measures Period prevalence of psychiatric rehospitalization was defined as a dichotomous measure of rehospitalization (i.e., having or not having at least one overnight stay in a psychiatric unit in a general hospital, psychiatric hospital, or psychiatric emergency room) during the last three follow-up intervals (last 18 weeks) of the study. After participants' discharge from the transitional residence, trained interviewers blind to group assignments conducted face-to-face interviews with participants every 6 weeks for 18 months to document rehospitalization during the respective follow-up period.
Key Findings Previously homeless men and women with severe mental illness who were discharged from inpatient psychiatric hospitalization to transitional residences on hospital grounds were randomly assigned to receive CTI plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care only (comparison group) at the point of discharge from transitional residences to the community. The percentage of participants having any psychiatric rehospitalization during the last three follow-up intervals was lower in the intervention group than comparison group (18% vs. 27%; p < .05).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.8 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 4: Number of nights spent in psychiatric rehospitalization
Description of Measures Number of nights spent in psychiatric rehospitalization was assessed using data collected from participants after discharge from transitional residence. Following discharge, trained interviewers blind to group assignments conducted face-to-face interviews with participants every 6 weeks for 18 months to document rehospitalization during the respective follow-up period. Psychiatric rehospitalization was defined as at least one overnight stay in a psychiatric unit in a general hospital, psychiatric hospital, or psychiatric emergency room.
Key Findings Previously homeless men and women with severe mental illness who were discharged from inpatient psychiatric hospitalization to transitional residences on hospital grounds were randomly assigned to receive CTI plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care only (comparison group) at the point of discharge from transitional residences to the community. The total number of nights spent in psychiatric rehospitalization during the last three follow-up intervals was lower for the intervention than comparison group (1,183 vs. 1,508; p < .05).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.5 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 5: Quality of family relationships
Description of Measures The quality of family relationships was assessed using two self-report subscales from the Lehman Quality of Life Interview (LQoLI) that measured the frequency of family contact and satisfaction with family relationships. Two items were used to measure the frequency of family contact: how often the participant spoke to a family member by telephone and how often the participant met with a family member. Items were rated using a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (at least once a day), and the two ratings were averaged. To measure satisfaction with family relationships, four items assessed the participant's feelings about family overall, frequency of contact with family, how family members acted toward each other, and general quality of the family relationships. Items were rated using a scale from 1 (terrible) to 7 (delighted), and the four ratings were averaged. At baseline (in the hospital before discharge) and 9 and 18 months following discharge, trained interviewers blind to group assignments conducted face-to-face interviews with participants to assess quality of family relationships.
Key Findings Previously homeless men and women with severe mental illness who were discharged from inpatient psychiatric hospitalization to transitional residences on hospital grounds were randomly assigned to receive CTI plus usual care (intervention group) or usual care only (comparison group) at the point of discharge from transitional residences to the community. Analyses controlled for baseline covariates, including gender, race, age, education, number of children, family relationship score, and total homeless and psychiatric hospitalization nights during the 90 days before the index hospital admission, as well as psychiatric diagnosis and substance use prior to hospital admission. Findings included the following:

  • Relative to the comparison group, the intervention group had a significant increase in frequency of family contact from baseline to 18 months (p = .02) but not from baseline to 9 months.
  • Relative to the comparison group, the intervention group had a significant increase in satisfaction with family relationships from baseline to 9 months (p = .02) and baseline to 18 months (p = .04).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 3.1 (0.0-4.0 scale)

Study Populations

The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of Research.

Study Age Gender Race/Ethnicity
Study 1 18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
71% Male
29% Female
62% Black or African American
17% White
15% Hispanic or Latino
6% Race/ethnicity unspecified

Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's reported results using six criteria:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.

Outcome Reliability
of Measures
Validity
of Measures
Fidelity Missing
Data/Attrition
Confounding
Variables
Data
Analysis
Overall
Rating
1: Period prevalence of homelessness 3.0 2.6 2.4 3.3 3.1 3.5 3.0
2: Number of nights spent homeless 2.6 2.2 2.4 3.3 3.1 3.5 2.8
3: Period prevalence of psychiatric rehospitalization 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.5 3.3 3.3 2.8
4: Number of nights spent in psychiatric rehospitalization 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.4 2.5
5: Quality of family relationships 3.9 3.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.1

Study Strengths

The measure used to assess the quality of family relationships has good reliability and validity and has been used in other studies on homelessness. The measures used to assess homelessness have an acceptable reliability level. All measures used in the study have face validity. The interventionists who implemented CTI were trained by the program developers and received weekly supervision from staff with experience using CTI. The study used random assignment. Multiple imputation procedures were employed to assess the impact of missing data for the homelessness outcomes. Analyses used for these two outcomes were appropriate.

Study Weaknesses

No evidence of reliability was provided for the measures used to assess psychiatric rehospitalization. For all but one of the measures, no information on validity other than face validity was available. No formal fidelity assessment or results were provided. There was no discussion regarding the amount of missing data or the methods used to handle missing data in the analyses for outcomes on psychiatric rehospitalization and quality of family relationships. The extent to which family-related issues were addressed in the intervention and comparison groups is generally unknown and could also have affected the findings.

Review Date: August 2006

Documents Reviewed

The documents below were reviewed for Quality of Research. The research point of contact can provide information regarding the studies reviewed and the availability of additional materials, including those from more recent studies that may have been conducted.

Study 1

Herman, D., Opler, L., Felix, A., Valencia, E., Wyatt, R. J., & Susser, E. (2000). A critical time intervention with mentally ill homeless men: Impact on psychiatric symptoms. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188, 135-140.  Pub Med icon

Jones, K., Colson, P. W., Holter, M. C., Lin, S., Valencia, E., Susser, E., et al. (2003). Cost-effectiveness of Critical Time Intervention to reduce homelessness among persons with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 54(6), 884-890.  Pub Med icon

Susser, E., Valencia, E., Conover, S., Felix, A., Tsai, W. Y., & Wyatt, R. J. (1997). Preventing recurrent homelessness among mentally ill men: A "critical time" intervention after discharge from a shelter. American Journal of Public Health, 87(2), 256-262.  Pub Med icon

Supplementary Materials

CTI Daily Contact Log

CTI Fidelity Scale

CTI Follow-Up Note

CTI Initial Note

CTI Treatment Manual

Herman, D., Conover, S., Felix, A., Nakagawa, A., & Mills, D. (n.d.). Critical Time Intervention: An empirically supported model for preventing homelessness in high risk groups. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Valencia, E., Susser, E., Torres, J., Felix, A., & Conover, S. (1997). Critical Time Intervention for homeless mentally ill individuals in transition from shelter to community living. In W. R. Breakey & J. W. Thompson (Eds.), Mentally ill and homeless: Special programs for special needs (pp. 75-94). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

Outcomes

Outcome 1: Homeless nights and extended homelessness
Description of Measures This outcome was measured every 30 days during an 18-month follow-up period by (1) average number of homeless nights (nights spent in shelters or public spaces), (2) proportion of participants who were homeless for most of the last month, (3) major homeless episodes (lasting 30 nights or more), (4) extended homelessness (being homeless more than 54 nights), and (5) nonhomeless nights (total number of nights minus the number of nights homeless).
Key Findings CTI participants averaged 30 homeless nights during a follow-up period, compared with 91 nights for men receiving usual services only (p = .003). They also averaged more nonhomeless nights (p = .01). CTI participants were less likely to be homeless during the past month (p = .05) and to experience extended homelessness (p = .045).
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 3.3 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 2: Negative symptoms of psychopathology
Description of Measures Severity of negative symptoms was assessed using the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). The scale measures (1) positive symptoms (delusions, hallucinations, grandiosity, suspiciousness, hostility, etc.); (2) negative symptoms (social withdrawal, emotional withdrawal, poor rapport, difficulty in abstract thinking, etc.); and (3) general psychopathology symptoms (anxiety, guilt feelings, tension, depression, etc.). Symptom ratings were performed by trained raters blind to group assignment.
Key Findings CTI participants experienced a significant decrease in negative symptoms over a 6-month follow-up period, compared with recipients of usual services (p = .02). No statistically significant effect was reported on positive or general symptoms of psychopathology.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.8 (0.0-4.0 scale)
Outcome 3: Number of homeless nights as a function of cost
Description of Measures Cost-effectiveness was measured by comparing the cost of housing (defined as the total average costs for acute care services, outpatient services, housing and shelter services, criminal justice services, and transfer income) with willingness-to-pay values (the additional price society is willing to spend for an additional nonhomeless night greater than $152).
Key Findings Over the course of an evaluation, the housing cost for CTI participants was $52,374, compared with $51,649 for recipients of usual services. The CTI participants experienced greater net housing stability benefit for each willingness-to-pay value.
Studies Measuring Outcome Study 1
Study Designs Experimental
Quality of Research Rating 2.5 (0.0-4.0 scale)

Study Populations

The following populations were identified in the studies reviewed for Quality of Research.

Study Age Gender Race/Ethnicity
Study 1 18-25 (Young adult)
26-55 (Adult)
55+ (Older adult)
100% Male 74% Black or African American
26% Race/ethnicity unspecified

Quality of Research Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the Quality of Research for an intervention's reported results using six criteria:

  1. Reliability of measures
  2. Validity of measures
  3. Intervention fidelity
  4. Missing data and attrition
  5. Potential confounding variables
  6. Appropriateness of analysis

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Quality of Research.

Outcome Reliability
of Measures
Validity
of Measures
Fidelity Missing
Data/Attrition
Confounding
Variables
Data
Analysis
Overall
Rating
1: Homeless nights and extended homelessness 4.0 3.8 2.5 4.0 2.0 3.5 3.3
2: Negative symptoms of psychopathology 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 2.0 2.0 2.8
3: Number of homeless nights as a function of cost 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 2.5

Study Strengths

The developer provided a clear operational definition for each measure of homeless status. Most of the measures were reliable and had some evidence of validity, most of the data were complete, and measurement was frequent. Interviewers regularly documented the housing status of study participants. The authors used an intervention fidelity measure to monitor whether clinicians were providing specific intervention elements. The study had a particularly high follow-up rate, which was an important study strength. Patients who withdrew from the study were tracked, and the reasons for withdrawal were identified. Appropriate analyses were used to assess group differences for each measure of homelessness. The large effect size for outcome 1 (prevention of recurrent homelessness) offsets concerns regarding the study sample size. The retention rate for outcome 2 (reduction of negative symptoms) was 80%, which was respectable given the target population. While problems may exist in the study used to measure cost-effectiveness (outcome 3), it is commendable that the authors conducted it.

Study Weaknesses

For outcome 1 (preventing recurrent homelessness), some measures had face validity but little evidence of some other measures of validity, including the proportion of participants who were homeless, major homeless episodes, and extended homelessness. The authors did not report data on a potential confounding variable; specifically, housing placements at discharge may have impacted homelessness. Specifics regarding the randomization process were not provided. For outcome 2 (reduction of negative symptoms), the authors did not indicate if reports on reliability were done by independent reviewers. Documentation of the validity of the measures used was not provided. There was little discussion of attempts to adjust for potential confounding variables. Data were not collected on other factors, such as psychiatric medication or alcohol/drug use severity, that are associated with symptom reduction, particularly negative symptoms. Analyses might have been impacted by the small study sample. Specifics regarding the randomization process were not provided. The appropriateness of the analysis used to evaluate cost-effectiveness (outcome 3) is not clear.

Readiness for Dissemination
Review Date: December 2013

Materials Reviewed

The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.

Center for Urban Community Services. (2011). Critical Time Intervention (CTI). Training and consultation services--Day 1: An overview [PowerPoint slides]. New York, NY: Author.

Center for Urban Community Services. (2011). Critical Time Intervention (CTI). Training and consultation services--Day 2: The team, documentation, & the skills of helping [PowerPoint slides]. New York, NY: Author.

Conover, S., & Restrepo-Toro, M. E. (2013). CTI-TS training the trainers manual. New York, NY: RedeAmericas.

CTI Fidelity Assessor Worksheets

CTI Fidelity Scale Protocol

Forms:

  • CTI Closing Note
  • CTI Phase Date Form
  • CTI Phase Plan
  • CTI Progress Notes
  • CTI Team Supervision Form

Herman, D., & Conover, S. (2002). Critical Time Intervention (CTI) manual.

Olivet, J. (2013). Small Business Innovation Research Phase 2, Evidence-based practice in community-based social work: A multi-media strategy, Contract HHS-N-271-2010-00032C final report. Newton, MA: Center for Social Innovation.

Olivet, J., Johnston, S. C., & Zerger, S. (2009). Small Business Innovation Research Phase 1, Evidence-based practice in community-based social work: A multi-media strategy, Contract HHS-N-271-2008-000027C final report. Newton, MA: Center for Social Innovation.

Program Web site, http://www.criticaltime.org

Training information:

  • CTI-HSP In-Person Training Slides With Case Example
  • CTI Module 1: The Basics [sample online training module]
  • CTI-TCC In-Person Training Slides
  • Eric: CTI Case Study
  • Sample Schedule of an Online 8-Week CTI Training

Training Web site, http://www.center4si.com/training/our_courses.cfm

Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination using three criteria:

  1. Availability of implementation materials
  2. Availability of training and support resources
  3. Availability of quality assurance procedures

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.

Implementation
Materials
Training and Support
Resources
Quality Assurance
Procedures
Overall
Rating
3.3 3.5 3.5 3.4

Dissemination Strengths

The manual is an excellent resource for building implementer understanding of the three phases of the intervention. The manual uses clinical vignettes to demonstrate the skills needed for intervention delivery. Extensive training and consultation is available online and on site, covering all aspects of implementation. Training capitalizes on principles of adult learning through role-play and clinical vignettes, with homework allowing for additional practice prior to implementation with clients. An extensive protocol is available for quality assurance. Comprehensive tools are provided to assess fidelity in terms of compliance, context, and competence, relying heavily on direct observation. A training course on quality assurance and fidelity monitoring is also offered.

Dissemination Weaknesses

Basic information about implementation (e.g., staffing requirements, roles and responsibilities of staff, cost, criteria for client recruitment, skills for implementation support staff, appropriate case load sizes) is available from the program developer but is not documented in written materials. Little detail is provided on the content or availability of training and consultation. No information is provided on the skills and training necessary to fulfill the case manager role. It is unclear which quality assurance and fidelity procedures are required and which are optional.

Review Date: August 2006

Materials Reviewed

The materials below were reviewed for Readiness for Dissemination. The implementation point of contact can provide information regarding implementation of the intervention and the availability of additional, updated, or new materials.

Conover, S., & Herman, D. (n.d.). Critical Time Intervention fidelity scale protocol.

CTI Daily Contact Log

CTI Fidelity Assessor Worksheets

CTI Fidelity Scale

CTI Follow-Up Note

CTI Initial Note

CTI Service Plan

CTI Treatment Manual

Readiness for Dissemination Ratings by Criteria (0.0-4.0 scale)

External reviewers independently evaluate the intervention's Readiness for Dissemination using three criteria:

  1. Availability of implementation materials
  2. Availability of training and support resources
  3. Availability of quality assurance procedures

For more information about these criteria and the meaning of the ratings, see Readiness for Dissemination.

Implementation
Materials
Training and Support
Resources
Quality Assurance
Procedures
Overall
Rating
2.0 0.5 1.5 1.3

Dissemination Strengths

Implementation materials include examples of treatment plans and activity logs. The materials describe the model and provide a variety of tools necessary to implement the program. A comprehensive fidelity scale and manual are provided.

Dissemination Weaknesses

The implementation materials assume that the individuals delivering the program will be highly skilled clinicians or case managers who are knowledgeable about substance abuse, motivational interviewing, assessment of symptom severity, and system resources. Very little information is provided on ongoing supervision and consultation, although it is also not clear how much training and support services are in fact available to implementers. While a fidelity instrument is provided, the intervention's complexity demands further discussion of ongoing training, coaching, supervision, and clear evaluation tools to support quality assurance.

Costs

The cost information below was provided by the developer. Although this cost information may have been updated by the developer since the time of review, it may not reflect the current costs or availability of items (including newly developed or discontinued items). The implementation point of contact can provide current information and discuss implementation requirements.

Item Description Cost Required by Developer
Implementation manual Free No
Forms Free Yes
Basic CTI training: online Knowledge@Work course (self-paced) $45 per person Yes, one basic CTI training option is required
Basic CTI training: 5-week online skills course (instructor led) $200 per person for one to four participants; $175 per person for five or more participants Yes, one basic CTI training option is required
Basic CTI training: 8-week online skills course (instructor led) About $2,000-$4,000 per site, with costs depending on site customization needs and number of participants Yes, one basic CTI training option is required
Basic CTI training: 2-day, on- or offsite training $3,200 per site, plus travel expenses Yes, one basic CTI training option is required
CTI fidelity assessment training (includes CTI Fidelity Scale Protocol and CTI Fidelity Assessor Worksheets) $3,200 per site, plus travel expenses No
Assessment prior to basic CTI training $480 for 3 hours No
Customization prior to basic CTI training $640 for 4 hours No
Implementation technical assistance following basic CTI training $3,840 for 24 hours and 8 calls No
Assessment prior to CTI fidelity assessment training $480 for 3 hours No
Customization prior to CTI fidelity assessment training $640 for 4 hours No
Consultation following CTI fidelity assessment training $640 for 4 hours No
Replications

Selected citations are presented below. An asterisk indicates that the document was reviewed for Quality of Research.

Baumgartner, J. N., & Herman, D. B. (2012). Community integration of formerly homeless men and women with severe mental illness after hospital discharge. Psychiatric Services, 63(5), 435-437.  Pub Med icon

* Herman, D. B., Conover, S., Gorroochurn, P., Hinterland, K., Hoepner, L., & Susser, E. S. (2011). Randomized trial of Critical Time Intervention to prevent homelessness after hospital discharge. Psychiatric Services, 62(7), 713-719.  Pub Med icon

Samuels, J., Shinn, M., Fischer, S., Thompkins, A., & Park, H. (2006). The impact of the family Critical Time Intervention on homeless children: Final report to the National Institute of Mental Health. Orangeburg, NY: Nathan Kline Institute of Psychiatric Research.

Samuels, J., Tang, D. I., O'Callaghan, S., Barrow, S., Lawinski, T., & Travers, N. (2006). Homeless families program final report: Homeless families in Westchester County, NY--Phase 2. Orangeburg, NY: Nathan Kline Institute of Psychiatric Research.

* Tomita, A., & Herman, D. B. (2012). The impact of Critical Time Intervention in reducing psychiatric rehospitalization after hospital discharge. Psychiatric Services, 63(9), 935-937.  Pub Med icon

Contact Information

To learn more about implementation, contact:
Sarah Conover, M.P.H.
(212) 396-7796
saconover@hotmail.com

To learn more about research, contact:
Daniel Herman, Ph.D.
(212) 396-7521
dhe0014@hunter.cuny.edu

Consider these Questions to Ask (PDF, 54KB) as you explore the possible use of this intervention.

Web Site(s):