Supportive housing

Last updated

Supportive housing is a combination of housing and services intended as a cost-effective way to help people live more stable, productive lives, and is an active "community services and funding" stream across the United States. It was developed by different professional academics and US governmental departments that supported housing. [1] Supportive housing is widely believed to work well for those who face the most complex challenges—individuals and families confronted with homelessness and who also have very low incomes and/or serious, persistent issues that may include substance use disorders (including alcoholism), mental health, HIV/AIDS, chronic illness, diverse disabilities (e.g., intellectual disabilities, mobility or sensory impairments) or other serious challenges to stable housing. [2]

Contents

Supportive housing in rehabilitation

Supportive housing can be coupled with such social services as job training, life skills training, alcohol and substance use disorder treatment, community support services (e.g., child care, educational programs, coffee klatches), and case management to populations in need of assistance. [3] Supportive housing is intended to be a pragmatic solution that helps people have better lives while reducing, to the extent feasible, the overall cost of care. As community housing, supportive housing can be developed as mixed income, scattered site housing not only through the traditional route of low income and building complexes. [4]

Supportive housing has been widely researched in the field of psychiatric disabilities and psychiatric rehabilitation, [5] [6] based in part on housing and support principles from studies of leading community integration organizations nationally. [7] In addition, supportive housing has been tied to national initiatives in supportive living (usually developmental and intellectual disabilities) [8] to cross-disability transfer [9] and to national and international efforts on developing homes of one's own. [10] Supported housing in the field of mental health is considered to be a critical component of a community support system which may involve supported education, [11] supported or transitional employment, [12] case management services, [13] clubhouses, [14] supported recreation [15] and involvement of family and friends often translated into psycho-educational programs. [16]

From 2002 to 2007, an estimated 65,000 to 72,000 units of supportive housing were created in the United States. This represents about half the supply of supported housing units. Of the new units added, about half were targeted towards chronically homeless individuals, and one-fifth were for homeless families. [17] According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the number of Permanent Supportive Housing beds in the US increased from 188,636 to 353,800 between 2007 and 2017. [18] Although of the shelter population, the majority remain as single, adult males of minority groups (approximately 65%), 38% were between 31 and 50 years old, and 38% had a disability; the rest were homeless families with a high concentration (likely due to high housing costs) in the states of California, New York and Florida. [19]

Populations served

Sponsors of supportive housing projects generally aim to serve a specific population; the characteristics of those served and the housing program range widely: [20] However, supporters of regular housing and support services in the community suggest choice based on other personal, social, and situational factors than specific population basis (e.g., choice of roommates or housemates, neighborhoods they live in). [21]

Today, important new populations for supported housing in regular neighborhoods include working families, especially those with high proportional housing costs, older adults who need intensive (enriched) services to avoid nursing home placements, and people who need places to live due to the closure of the old style, institutional psychiatric care. Increasingly, supportive housing may be required as unemployment increases, for newly emerging groups such as newly legalized gay and lesbian partners, multi-generational immigrant groups in the new multicultural world, and for those adolescents aging out of their parents' homes to new community options. One of the 2000s textbooks on Supported/supportive Housing is a report on state projects in the US for older adults which includes use of the home and community-based (HCBS) waiver, efforts to reform more than 43 congregate residential categories in states, use of housing subsidies for low income persons, assisted living options, "comprehensive case/care management", and technical area such as "at-risk" housing and non-profit development. [22]

Benefits of supportive housing for specific populations groups

Supportive housing proposes to be a comprehensive solution to a problem rather than a band-aid fix (such as a shelter). While many of those who stay in the shelter system remain in or return to the system for extended periods of time, a much higher percentage of those who are placed in supportive housing remain housed on a more permanent basis. [23] This idea is also referred to as the Housing First model, an approach to combating chronic homelessness by providing homes upfront and offering help for illnesses and addictions. The concept turns the traditional model, which typically requires sobriety (or prerequisites that can be used for enhanced services before a person can get housing), upside down.

Research has shown that coupling permanent housing with supportive services is highly effective at maintaining housing stability, as well as helps improve health outcomes and decreases the use of publicly funded institutions. A review of the impact of these services found that they can improve health outcomes among chronically homeless individuals, including positive changes in self-reported mental health status, substance use, and overall well-being. [24] In the Collaborative Initiative to Help End Chronic Homelessness (CICH), participants who had been homeless for an average of eight years were immediately placed into permanent housing. The CICH evaluation reported that 95% of those individuals were in independent housing after 12 months. [25] A study of homeless people in New York City with serious mental illness found that providing supportive housing to the individuals directly resulted in a 60% decrease in emergency shelter use for clients, as well as decreases in the use of public medical and mental health services and city jails and state prisons. Another study in Seattle in 2009 found that moving "people with chronic alcoholism" into supportive housing resulted in a 33% decline in alcohol use for clients. [23]

There is significant support for the contention that supportive housing also costs less than other systems where its tenant base may reside, such as jails, hospitals, mental health facilities, and even shelters. Research on the overall costs to the taxpayer of supportive housing has consistently found the costs to the taxpayer to be about the same or lower than the alternative of a chronically homeless person sleeping in a shelter. The CICH evaluation showed that average costs for healthcare and treatment were reduced by about half, which the largest decline associated with inpatient hospital care. [26] The use of supportive housing has been shown to be cost-effective, resulting in reductions in the use of shelter, ambulance, police/jail, health care, emergency room, behavior health, and other service costs. For example, one 2016 report identified studies documenting that these services can reduce health care costs, emergency department visits, and length of stays in psychiatric hospitals. [24] The Denver Housing First Collaborative documented that the annual cost of supportive housing for a chronically homeless individual was $13,400. However, the per-person reduction in public services recorded by the Denver Housing First Collaborative came to $15,773 per person per year, more than compensating for the annual supportive housing costs. [27]

When paired with low-income housing (or mixed-income housing), government subsidies (such as section 8 or Housing choice vouchers) and other revenue generating operations, supportive housing residences are claimed by their supporters to be capable of supporting themselves and even turning a profit (which can be used for enhanced services and amenities for the residents by a non-profit organization). According to a 2007 study done by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, supportive housing helps tenants increase their incomes, work more, get arrested less, make more progress toward recovery, and become more active, valued and productive members of their communities. [26]

Impact on neighborhoods

Supportive housing can help people facing health challenges to continue to live in the community. However, proposals for new housing projects often faced local opposition, largely based on fears regarding adverse effects on property values and crime rates, local businesses, and the quality of life in the surrounding neighborhood. A 2008 study [28] in Toronto, Canada reported:

One of the benefits of supportive housing which is integrated into the community [29] is that local opposition and fears are minimized. Neighborhoods have been studied as part of the development of community support, and as places for the development of personal connections and neighborhood relations. [30] [31] In addition, a capacity-based approach to neighborhood development can be made integral to the development of supportive housing, including aspects of neighborhood asset building. [32] In many ways, these projects can be a return to neighborhood-based control of services' planning which resulted in the 1990s in new housing developments, after school programs, parent support groups, respite care and similar initiatives in the field of children's mental health, [33]

Limitations, impediments and challenges affecting the development of Supportive Housing

Financial feasibility

Some projects fail to materialize because of a real or perceived lack of government program funds, charitable grants, bank loans or a combination of such funding to pay for the cost of creating and operating financially viable supportive housing. [34] Other organizations, however, have accessed diverse mix and match funding for highly visible community demonstrations for special population groups. [35]

Early directions for financing of housing and support services in the community included financing sources, such as housing cooperative programs, mixed income housing associations, community development block grants, loans for accessibility programs, tax exempt bonds, trust funds, housing subsidies, and low interest loans. [36] [37] The housing communities and institutes in the US, as early as the early 1980s, included Institute for Community Economics, McAuley Institute, Women's Institute for Housing and Economic Development, Habitat for Humanity, the Housing Technical Assistance Project of the ARCs, Local Support Corporation (LISC), University of Vermont (Center for Community Change through Housing and Support), Creative Management Associates, Enterprise Foundation, and National Housing Coalition. [38]

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development regularly makes available free information on housing financing and developments in the US through their website, including "Research Works" (in 2011, also on sustainability and green initiatives) and "US Housing Market Conditions". Specific technical resources are available to providers and researchers such as on Section 8 or housing vouchers (portable vouchers) [39]

Government policies and plans

Where traditional solutions—institutions, charitable organizations or other methods—are recognized as inadequate solutions for the situation, national, regional and local officials have come to believe that homelessness is a problem that can and should be solved by other means. In some areas, this produced a movement to find alternative solutions rather than continuing to fund the traditional solutions, including shelter system, jails, asylums and hospitals. In addition to homelessness, the movement today is to downsize or close psychiatric centers (e.g., Olmstead initiative) [40]

In the US, hundreds of city governments have produced "10-year plans" that provide for supportive housing to end chronic homelessness because the Bush administration began pushing for creation of the plans in 2003. The goal: put the homeless people with complex situations and needs into permanent or transitional "supportive" housing with counseling services that help them get healthy lifestyles of their own choosing. The evidence shows supportive housing may be a viable solution: the number of street people in cities across the United States has plummeted for the first time since the 1980s. In 2005–2006, Miami, Florida reported a 20% decline in homeless populations and dozens of other US cities reported similar census results: San Francisco, CA (30%), Portland, OR (20%), Dallas, TX (28%), New York, NY (13%). [41]

Guided by research, Congress has taken several steps to encourage the development of permanent supportive housing. Beginning in the late 1990s, appropriations bills have increased funding for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's homeless assistance programs and targeted at least 30 percent of funding to permanent supportive housing. Congress has also provided funding to ensure that permanent supportive housing funded by one of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development programs (Shelter Plus Care) would be renewed non-competitively, helping to ensure that chronically homeless people could remain in their housing. [42] The 2009 legislative mandate from the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act created bipartisan political support to adopt a collaborative approach to end homelessness. From this effort spawned the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness's Opening Doors Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness in 2010. With a focus on permanent supportive housing as a means of ending chronic homelessness, the plan outlines an interagency effort aligning mainstream housing, health, education, and human services. [43]

Lack of expertise in development and operations

One impediment to the development of additional housing stock where it is otherwise needed, permissible and feasible is the lack of real estate acquisition, development & financing expertise in the government agencies and non-profit (non-governmental) organizations interested in serving those who need and want supportive housing. [44] The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development is trying to bridge that information and knowledge gap with the availability of regular reports on market and housing conditions throughout the nation, and statistics on all kinds of housing developments (e.g., home ownership, multifamily structures).

In addition, there is a widening affordability gap in housing, especially with the lowest income households. [45] Experts point to several factors contributing to this gap: erosion in the housing stock, high housing prices, a drop in real wages, a decline in middle wage jobs, increases in transportation costs, expensive development requirements, regulatory constraints, and insufficient housing assistance funds to meet the needs. [46]

Economic impact on society

Studies cited by supporters (who represent the advocacy and provider sectors listed below) conclude that supportive housing is a cost-effective solution for the problems of several populations; it is substantially less costly than most alternatives used to address the problems of homeless people, including shelters, institutions and hospitals. Current arguments are that supportive housing often reduces the cost of emergency services for health care provided by governmental and non-profit agencies. [47] The chronically homeless, the 10-20% who are continually on the street with addiction and mental problems impose heavy costs on their communities in hospital, jail and other services—hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece annually in some instances. [41]

Per a study published in JAMA in 2009, a supportive housing development called 1811 Eastlake saved taxpayers $4 million in the first year of operation alone, because these residents are now off the streets and out of emergency rooms and in a safe, steady and supportive living environment. [49] The 1811 Eastlake study compared 95 Housing First participants, with 39 wait-list control members and found cost reductions of over 50 percent for the Housing First group. While it is not the first published evidence of the service use reductions and cost savings that permanent supportive housing interventions can provide, it is worth highlighting because the level of the cost savings – almost $30,000 per person per year after accounting for housing program costs – are greater than some seminal studies that have shown more modest cost offsets through permanent supportive housing. 1811 Eastlake provided assistance to homeless people with extensive health issues and still saw a savings of nearly $30,000 per tenant per year in publicly funded services, all while achieving improved housing and health outcomes.

However, supportive housing, especially as assisted living, may be congregate in nature either related to hospital and nursing home systems reform on one hand (e.g., Pynoos et al., 2004), or in psychiatric, to its categorical disability service system with roots in community services systems and psychiatric hospitals. [1] In the field of intellectual disabilities, the term supportive living is more common with decongregated, small size homes and apartments with choice options throughout local communities. [50]

From supported housing to housing and support

The US has experienced an effort to move from facility-based services to more of a housing and support approach in regular homes in typical neighborhoods. [51] [52] This movement, involving state-federal and university collaboration, has involved the development of principles of housing and support which could apply across different disability groups interested in moving from the facility-based (bundled program) approach to housing and support. These principles are:

Supportive housing, in addition to quality assurance procedures, are meant to ensure quality of care and quality of life; Sheehan and Oakes (2004) indicate that residents may be reluctant to complain on satisfaction surveys since they may be relocated to even stricter nursing facilities. However, these projects have included Real Systems Change Grants to enhance opportunities for independent living for people with disabilities and to assist 3 communities (in Connecticut) to become models of inclusion of people with disabilities and to transition from the nursing facilities. [58] Supported housing (which is the first community living to involve housing, though NGO purchasing and leasing of community homes preceded this development) now is in its 4th decade in the university-governmental and community sectors, and was also succeeded by models of housing and health from the traditional medical sectors.

Supportive housing providers

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development supports plans for the development or redevelopment of communities ("planned communities", US Congress) in 2019 and the development of "large scale housing and mixed use developments" (e.g., mixed income housing projects such as through the Madison Mutual Housing Association and Cooperatives; housing-business-transportation-recreation-schools projects), including on Indian reservations and land in the US. [59] [60]

Supported/supportive housing governmental assistance

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homelessness in the United States</span>

In the United States, the number of homeless people on a given night in January 2023 was more than 650,000 according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Homelessness has increased in recent years, in large part due to an increasingly severe housing shortage and rising home prices in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Long-term care</span> Services for the elderly or those with chronic illness or disability

Long-term care (LTC) is a variety of services which help meet both the medical and non-medical needs of people with a chronic illness or disability who cannot care for themselves for long periods. Long-term care is focused on individualized and coordinated services that promote independence, maximize patients' quality of life, and meet patients' needs over a period of time.

"The normalization principle means making available to all people with disabilities patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life or society." Normalization is a rigorous theory of human services that can be applied to disability services. Normalization theory arose in the early 1970s, towards the end of the institutionalisation period in the US; it is one of the strongest and long lasting integration theories for people with severe disabilities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deinstitutionalisation</span> Replacement of psychiatric hospitals

Deinstitutionalisation is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability. In the late 20th century, it led to the closure of many psychiatric hospitals, as patients were increasingly cared for at home, in halfway houses and clinics, in regular hospitals, or not at all.

Supported living or supportive living refers to a range of services and community living arrangements (CLAs) designed with individuals with disabilities and their families to support disabled citizens to attain or retain their independence or interdependence in their local communities. Supported living is recorded in the history of the NASDDDS, celebrating its 50th anniversary. Community Supported Living Arrangements (CSLA) was a landmark federal multi-state demonstration to illustrate the federal role in community living in the US. Supported living is considered a core service or program of community living programs funded through federal-state-local partnerships.

A mental health professional is a health care practitioner or social and human services provider who offers services for the purpose of improving an individual's mental health or to treat mental disorders. This broad category was developed as a name for community personnel who worked in the new community mental health agencies begun in the 1970s to assist individuals moving from state hospitals, to prevent admissions, and to provide support in homes, jobs, education, and community. These individuals were the forefront brigade to develop the community programs, which today may be referred to by names such as supported housing, psychiatric rehabilitation, supported or transitional employment, sheltered workshops, supported education, daily living skills, affirmative industries, dual diagnosis treatment, individual and family psychoeducation, adult day care, foster care, family services and mental health counseling.

Assertive community treatment (ACT) is an intensive and highly integrated approach for community mental health service delivery. ACT teams serve individuals who have been diagnosed with serious and persistent forms of mental illness, predominantly but not exclusively the schizophrenia spectrum disorders. ACT service recipients may also have diagnostic profiles that include features typically found in other DSM-5 categories. Many have histories of frequent psychiatric hospitalization, substance abuse, victimization and trauma, arrests and incarceration, homelessness, and additional significant challenges. The symptoms and complications of their mental illnesses have led to serious functioning difficulties in several areas of life, often including work, social relationships, residential independence, money management, and physical health and wellness. By the time they start receiving ACT services, they are likely to have experienced failure, discrimination, and stigmatization, and their hope for the future is likely to be quite low.

Housing First is a policy that offers unconditional, permanent housing as quickly as possible to homeless people, and other supportive services afterward. It was first discussed in the 1990s, and in the following decades became government policy in certain locations within the Western world. There is a substantial base of evidence showing that Housing First is both an effective solution to homelessness and a form of cost savings, as it also reduces the use of public services like hospitals, jails, and emergency shelters. Cities like Helsinki and Vienna in Europe have seen dramatic reductions in homelessness due to the adaptation of Housing First policies, as have the North American cities Columbus, Ohio, Salt Lake City, Utah, and Medicine Hat, Alberta.

A group home, congregate living facility, care home, adult family home, etc., is a structured and supervised residence model that provides assisted living and medical care for those with complex health needs. Traditionally, the model has been used for children or young people who cannot live with their families or afford their own homes, people with chronic disabilities who may be adults or seniors, or people with dementia and related aged illnesses. Typically, there are no more than six residents, and there is at least one trained caregiver there 24 hours a day. In some early "model programs", a house manager, night manager, weekend activity coordinator, and four part-time skill teachers were reported. Originally, the term group home referred to homes of 8 to 16 individuals, which was a state-mandated size during deinstitutionalization. Residential nursing facilities, also included in this article, may be as large as 100 individuals in 2015, which is no longer the case in fields such as intellectual and developmental disabilities. Depending on the severity of the condition requiring one to need to live in a group home, some clients are able to attend day programs and most clients are able to live normal lifestyles.

Psychiatric rehabilitation, also known as psychosocial rehabilitation, and sometimes simplified to psych rehab by providers, is the process of restoration of community functioning and well-being of an individual diagnosed in mental health or emotional disorder and who may be considered to have a psychiatric disability.

Supported employment refers to service provisions wherein people with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, mental health, and traumatic brain injury, among others, are assisted with obtaining and maintaining employment. Supported employment is considered to be one form of employment in which wages are expected, together with benefits from an employer in a competitive workplace, though some versions refer to disability agency paid employment. Companies such as Skilcraft in the United States are an example of "supported employment" which is defined in law for state and federal reimbursements.

Community mental health services (CMHS), also known as community mental health teams (CMHT) in the United Kingdom, support or treat people with mental disorders in a domiciliary setting, instead of a psychiatric hospital (asylum). The array of community mental health services vary depending on the country in which the services are provided. It refers to a system of care in which the patient's community, not a specific facility such as a hospital, is the primary provider of care for people with a mental illness. The goal of community mental health services often includes much more than simply providing outpatient psychiatric treatment.

Services for mental health disorders provide treatment, support, or advocacy to people who have psychiatric illnesses. These may include medical, behavioral, social, and legal services.

Conard House is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in the SoMa arts district of San Francisco, working to support adults living with serious mental health and medical conditions. The organization's restated mission is "to empower people who live and work on the margins of society."

Community integration, while diversely defined, is a term encompassing the full participation of all people in community life. It has specifically referred to the integration of people with disabilities into US society from the local to the national level, and for decades was a defining agenda in countries such as Great Britain. Throughout recent decades, community integration programs have been increasingly effective in improving healthcare access for people with disabilities. They have been valued for providing a "voice for the voiceless"

Family support is the support of families with a member with a disability, which may include a child, an adult, or even the parent in the family. In the United States, family support includes "unpaid" or "informal" support by neighbors, families, and friends, "paid services" through specialist agencies providing an array of services termed "family support services", school or parent services for special needs such as respite care, specialized child care or peer companions, or cash subsidies, tax deductions or other financial subsidies. Family support has been extended to different population groups in the US and worldwide. Family support services are currently a "community services and funding" stream in New York and the US which has had variable "application" based on disability groups, administrating agencies, and even, regulatory and legislative intent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homelessness and mental health</span>

In a study in Western societies, homeless people have a higher prevalence of mental illness when compared to the general population. They also are more likely to suffer from alcoholism and drug dependency. It is estimated that 20–25% of homeless people, compared with 6% of the non-homeless, have severe mental illness. Others estimate that up to one-third of the homeless have a mental illness. In January 2015, the most extensive survey ever undertaken found 564,708 people were homeless on a given night in the United States. Depending on the age group in question and how homelessness is defined, the consensus estimate as of 2014 was that, at minimum, 25% of the American homeless—140,000 individuals—were seriously mentally ill at any given point in time. 45% percent of the homeless—250,000 individuals—had any mental illness. More would be labeled homeless if these were annual counts rather than point-in-time counts. Being chronically homeless also means that people with mental illnesses are more likely to experience catastrophic health crises requiring medical intervention or resulting in institutionalization within the criminal justice system. Majority of the homeless population do not have a mental illness. Although there is no correlation between homelessness and mental health, those who are dealing with homelessness are struggling with psychological and emotional distress. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration conducted a study and found that in 2010, 26.2 percent of sheltered homeless people had a severe mental illness.

As of 2017, approximately 1.4 million Americans live in a nursing home, two-thirds of whom rely on Medicaid to pay for their care. Residential nursing facilities receive Medicaid federal funding and approvals through a state health department. These facilities may be overseen by various types of state agency.

Homeless veterans are persons who have served in the armed forces who are homeless or living without access to secure and appropriate accommodation.

Serious mental illness (SMI) is characterized as any mental health condition that impairs seriously or severely from one to several significant life activities, including day to day functioning. Four common examples of SMI include bipolar disorders, psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress disorders, and major depressive disorders. People having SMI experience symptoms that prevent them from having experiences that contribute to a good quality of life, due to social, physical, and psychological limitations of their illnesses. In 2021, there was a 5.5% prevalence rate of U.S. adults diagnosed with SMI, with the highest percentage being in the 18 to 25 year-old group (11.4%). Also in the study, 65.4% of the 5.5% diagnosed adults with SMI received mental health care services.

References

  1. 1 2 Racino, Julie A. (2014). Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US. NY, NY and London, UK: CRC Press, Francis and Taylor.
  2. "Public Housing Authorities: helping to end homelessness through permanent supportive housing, Journal of Housing & Community Development March/April 2008 p18.
  3. Cohen, M.D. & Somers, S. (1990, April). Supported housing: Insights from the Robert Wood Johnson program on chronic mental illness. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal", 13(4): 43-51.
  4. "Journal of Housing & Community Development", March/April 2008 p18-21
  5. Carling, P.J. (1995). Improving access to, preserving, and developing housing. In: P. J. Carling, Return to Community: Building Support Systems for People with Psychiatric Disabilities. (pp. 206-226). NY, NY and London: The Guilford Press.
  6. Rogers, E.S., Farkas, M., Anthony, W., Kash, M., Harding, O., Olschewski, A. (nd, @2009). "Systematic Review of Supported Housing Literature 1993-2008." Boston, MA: Boston University Center for Psychiatric Rehabilitation>
  7. Racino, J. (1991). Organizations in community living: Supporting people with disabilities. "Journal of Mental Health Administration", 18(1), 51-59.
  8. Taylor, S. (1987). "A Policy Analysis of the Supported Housing Demonstration in Pittsburgh, PA." Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Community Integration Project, Syracuse University.
  9. Shoultz, B. (1988). My home not theirs: Promising approaches in mental health and developmental disabilities. In: Friedman, S.J. & Terkelson, K.G., "Issues in Community Mental Health: Housing". Canton, MA: PRODIST.
  10. Fitton, P. & Willson, J. (1995). A home of their own: Achieving supported housing. In: T. Philpot & L. Ward (Eds.), "Values and Visions: Changing Ideas in Services for People with Learning Difficulties." Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, Ltd.
  11. Housel, D. & Hickey, J. S. (1993, July). Supported education in a community college for students with psychiatric disabilities: The Houston College Model. "Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal", 17(3):41-50.
  12. Collignon, F.C., Noble, J. H., & Toms-Barker, L. (1987, October). Early lessons from the Marion County demonstration in integrating vocational and mental health services. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal", XI(2): 76-86
  13. Stroul, B. (1989, January). Community support systems for persons with long-term mental illness: A conceptual framework. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal", 12(3): 9-26.
  14. Propst, R. (1992, October). Standards for clubhouses: Why and how they were developed. Special Issue: Clubhouse Model. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal", 16(2): 25-30.
  15. Pyke, J. & Atcheson, V. (1993, October). Social recreation services: Issues from a case management perspective. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation", 17(2): 121-130.
  16. Ryglewicz, H. (1991, October). Psychoeducation for clients and families: A way in, out, and through in working with people with dual disorders. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal", 15(2): 79-91.
  17. Chronic Homelessness Briefing Paper [ permanent dead link ], United States Interagency Council on Homelessness
  18. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. "2017 AHAR: Part 1 - PIT Estimates of Homelessness in the U.S." (PDF). Retrieved 5 August 2018.
  19. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2009). "The 2009 Annual Homeless Assessment Report to Congress." Washington, DC: Author.
  20. "Corporation for Supportive Housing" . Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  21. Racino, J., Walker, P., O'Connor, S., & Taylor, S. (1993). "Housing, Support and Community: Choices and Strategies for Adults with Disabilities". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  22. Pynoos, J., Hollander-Feldman, P.,& Ahrens, J. (2004). "Linking Housing and Services for Older Adults: Obstacles, Options and Opportunities." Binghamton, NY and London: The Haworth Press.
  23. 1 2 Chronic Homelessness Brief Archived 2011-04-20 at the Wayback Machine , National Alliance to End Homelessness
  24. 1 2 "Rapid Evidence Review: What Housing-related Services and Supports Improve Health Outcomes among Chronically Homeless Individuals?". AcademyHealth: Advancing Research, Policy and Practice. AcademyHealth.
  25. Elliott, Janice and Wilkins, Carol."Chronic Homelessness [ permanent dead link ]," United States Interagency Council on Homelessness Briefing Paper
  26. 1 2 "Supportive Housing is Cost-Effective Archived 2011-04-27 at the Wayback Machine ," National Alliance to End Homelessness
  27. Parvensky, John, and Perlman, Jennifer. "Denver First Housing Collaborative: Cost Benefit Analysis and Program Outcomes report Archived 2011-10-05 at the Wayback Machine "
  28. de Wolff, Alice (May 2008). "We Are Neighbours" (PDF). Wellesley Institute. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  29. Carling, P.J., Randolph, F.L., Blanch, A.K., & Ridgeway, P. (1988). A review of research on housing and community integration for people with psychiatric disabilities. "NARIC Quarterly.", 1(3), 8-16.
  30. Racino, J. & O'Connor, S. (1994). "A home of our own": Home, neighborhoods, and personal connections. In: M. Hayden & B. Abery (Eds.), "Challenges to a Service System in Transition". (pp. 381-403). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  31. Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., Klebanonv, P. & Sealand, N. (1993, September). Do neighborhoods influence child and adolescent development? "American Journal of Sociology", 99(2), 353-395.
  32. McKnight, J. (1987). The future of low-income neighborhoods and the people who reside there: A capacity-oriented strategy for neighborhood development. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.
  33. King, B. & Meyers, J. (1996). The Annie E. Casey Foundation's mental health initiative for urban children. In: B.Stroul & R. Friedman (Eds.), "Children's Mental Health" (pp. 249-264). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  34. Supportive Housing Cookbook, 2004|www.atlastahouse.org
  35. Taylor, S. (1987). Supported housing demonstration project in Pittsburgh, PA. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Center on Human Policy.
  36. O'Connor, S. & Racino, J. (1989). "New Directions in Housing for People with Severe Disabilities: A Collection of Resource Materials." Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration
  37. Racino, J., Walker, P., O'Connor, S., & Taylor, S. (1993). "Housing, Support and Community". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  38. O'Connor, S. & Racino, J. (1989). "New Directions in Housing for People with Severe Disabilities: A Collection of Resource Materials." Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration.
  39. Technical Assistance Collaborative. (2002, June). "Section 8 Made Simple: Using the Housing Choice Voucher Program to Assist People with Disabilities." Boston, MA: Author.
  40. "...Supreme Court Upholds Integration Mandate in Olmstead – Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W." (1999). Center for Accessible Society.
  41. 1 2 U.S. homeless numbers decline / NATIONWIDE: 'Supportive' housing seen as good start San Francisco Chronicle (CA), May 14, 2006
  42. National Alliance to End Homelessness, Chronic Homelessness Fact Sheet Archived 2011-07-20 at the Wayback Machine
  43. United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. "Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness Archived 2011-01-01 at the Wayback Machine ."
  44. "AtLastAHouse.org". Archived from the original on 2013-10-12. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  45. "The State of the Nation's Housing". Joint Center for Housing Studies. Harvard University. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  46. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research. (2008, May). Housing: Critical for Working Families and Communities. "Research Works", 5(5), p.1.
  47. "What Is Supportive Housing?". Supportive Housing Network of NY. Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  48. The Lewin Group (2004). "Cost of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine Cities" . Retrieved 11 October 2013.
  49. Larimer, Mary E.; Daniel K. Malone; Michelle D. Garner; et al. (April 2009). "Health Care and Public Service Use and Costs Before and After Provision of Housing for Chronically Homeless Persons With Severe Alcohol Problems". JAMA. 301 (13): 1349–1357. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.414 . PMID   19336710.
  50. Racino, J. (2014, in press). "Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US." NY, NY: CRC Press, Francis and Taylor.
  51. Taylor, S., Racino, J., Knoll, J. & Lutfiyya, Z. (1987). "The nonrestrictive environment: On community integration for persons with the most severe disabilities." Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.
  52. Racino, J., Walker, P., O'Connor, S., & Taylor, S. (1993). "Housing, Support and Community." Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  53. Racino, J. (1992). Living in the community: Independence, support and transition. (p. 137). In: F.R. Rusch, L. DeStefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L.A. Phelps, & E. Szymanski, "Transition from School to Adult Life." Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
  54. Racino, J., et al. (1993). Housing, Support and Community. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  55. Carling, P. (1994). Supports and rehabilitation for housing and community living. (pp. 89-110). In: Spaniol, L., Brown, M., Blankertz, L., Burnham, D., Dincin, J., Furlong-Norman, K., Nesbitt, N., Ottenstein, P., Prieve, K., Rutman, I., & Zipple, A. (Eds.), "An Introduction to Psychiatric Rehabilitation." Columbia, MD: International Association of Psychosocial Rehabilitation Services.
  56. Ridgeway, P. & Zipple, A. (1990, April). The paradigm shift in residential services: From linear continuum to supported housing approaches. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal", 13(4): 11-32.
  57. Keck, J. (1990, April). Responding to consumer housing choices: The Toledo experience. "Psychosocial Rehabilitation Journal", 13(4): 51-59.
  58. Sheehan, N. & Oakes, C. (2004). Public policy initiatives addressing supportive housing: The experience of Connecticut. (pp. 114). In J. Pynoos, P. Hollander-Feldman, & J. Ahrens, "Linking Housing and Services for Older Adults". London: Haworth Press.
  59. Carson, B. (2019, May 23). Testimony of Ben Carson to the US Congress on US Housing and Urban Development Department. Chaired by Maxine Waters. Washington, DC: US HUD. [You Tube online]
  60. Racino, J. (2014). Housing and disability: Toward inclusive, sustainable, and equitable communities. In: J. Racino (Ed.), Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US. (pp. 123-156). NY, NY, London, and Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis.

Further reading