131 The effects of supported housing for individuals with mental disorders Table A1. Selection of the study population % of applications to supported housing 2009-2013 † Number of observations left following exclusion Exclusion criteria Applications to supported housing 20092013 100.0% 34,107 Information on regional office missing 0.1% 34,078 Needed to estimate leniency Information on assessor missing ‡ 4.1% 32,682 Needed to estimate leniency Age <18 0,1% 32,638 Not part of the population of interest Age > 79 3.6% 31,423 Margin between supported housing and institutional care Psychogeriatric indication 0.5% 31,244 Intellectual, sensory or physical disability indication 6.4% 29,072 Palliative care <0.1% 29,059 Backoffice decision § <0.1% 29,052 Not relevant for leniency (limited discretionary power) Valid supported housing eligibility decision < 365 days 27.0% 19,828 Emergency applications 0.9% 19,522 Applications following pre-defined routes 1.3% 19,086 Standard assessment 0.7% 18,839 Insufficient applications per assessor for leniency estimation < 30 applications assessor/assessment/ regional office 17.8% 12,767 To allow minimum precision in the estimate of leniency 2009 and 2010 or missing data on controls 14.1% 7,953 Notes: † Criteria are not mutually exclusive. ‡ Most applications without information on assessor correspond to backoffice decisions. § Backoffice decisions with an assessor number might correspond to SIP (predefined procedure) or HIT (delegated reassessments) applications that were checked by assessors. 4
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw